&EPA
                  United States                 Region 6
                  Environmental Protection          1201 Elm Street
                  Agency                    Dallas, TX 75270

                  Water '
                 Wastewater Treatment Facilities
                 Lakeviews

-------
                FINAL
   ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                 FOR

         LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
   WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES

      GRANT NO.  C-05-0441-01-0
U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              REGION 6
            DALLAS,  TEXAS
            JANUARY 1979
                           ADLENFHARRISW
                           REGIONAL  ADMINISTRATOR

-------
                       EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A.   PROBLEMS AND ISSUES
          The proposed project was initiated to provide waste-
water collection and treatment for the Lakeview, Arkansas area
which currently relies on individual septic tank systems.  The
main concerns and issues discussed in the EIS are:
          the extent of existing and potential ground- and
surface-water contamination and related health hazards from
septic tank systems;
          cost-effective alternatives to the proposed action
including "no action" and upgraded on-site disposal systems;
          the disruptive effects of project construction on
the community;
          cost and economic effects;
          the effects of discharge on water quality and aquatic
life;
          aesthetic effects on fishing and tourism;
          the secondary effects of induced development and in-
creased population density; and
          effects on archeological  resources.

B.   ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
          Lakeview is a small  and relatively new community on
Bull Shoals Lake in north central Arkansas.   Lakeview is near
Bull Shoals Dam in an area of the Ozark Mountains with flat-
topped hills and steep-sided valleys along the White River.
Lakeview is a recreation and retirement area with a population
which is principally interested in the benefits of  its lakeside
location.

-------
          The 1977 population equivalent of the proposed
project area is about 1,350, which includes incorporated
Lakeview and certain residential and recreation areas outside
the town limits.  Lakeview and the surrounding region have
grown rapidly in population because of scenic beauty, recrea-
tional opportunities, a quiet atmosphere, mild climate, at-
tractive residential developments, and low taxes.
          The White River in the Lakeview area is almost
completely controlled by the operation of Bull Shoals Dam, and
there are large flow fluctuations depending especially upon
power generation.   The Bull Shoals Lake and White River water
quality is generally excellent.  Cold water releases from the
Dam have eliminated most of the native fish in a 100-mile
stretch of the White River; however, an intensive trout-stocking
program has created the largest and most productive put-and-take
trout stream in the Nation.  Bull Shoals Lake is heavily used
for recreation  including water-contact recreation.   Incidents
of septic tank  effluent surfacing and runoff to the lake have
occurred, but obvious local pollution effects or discernible
water quality changes have not been noted at lake and river
monitoring stations.
          Ground water generally lies at about 110-ft depth in
the Lakeview plateau area and this shallow fractured-!imestone
aquifer is used for many small public and private well sup-
plies.  Underlying formations with much greater yields are
used  for larger public wells.  Much of the Lakeview area is
served by a water association which obtains its water from
another lake source via the City of Mountain Home,  15 miles
away.
          Wells sampled in the Lakeview area indicate elevated
levels of nitrate and chloride in the shallow aquifer near the

-------
tourist and commercial center.  Contamination from on-site
disposal systems is strongly indicated since there are no
major agricultural or other pollution sources in the vicinity.
The bacteriological results were unsatisfactory (high coliform
bacteria counts) for most of the well systems sampled, al-
though the cause cannot necessarily be attributed to aquifer
contamination by septic tank systems.
          The important factors influencing the performance of
on-site disposal systems include soils, topography, geology,
ground water, and density of development.   The topography is
characterized by carbonate rock, sinkholes, subterranean
drainage, solution channels, and caves.  Leachate from septic
tank systems percolates through this subterranean drainage
system and will eventually reach the aquifer.   The depth to
rock is highly irregular in the Lakeview area because of the
susceptibility of carbonate rock to solution and weathering.
More than the 6-ft minimum required for septic tank systems is
generally expected on the flat ridge area,  with the steep
slopes having less cover.   Nearly all of the Lakeview area
soil types are rated as having severe limitations for septic
tank system installation because of slow percolation, swelling
characteristics, shallow bedrock, rock content,  and slope.
          A survey was made to determine the extent of the
septic-tank-system problems.   Survey results indicated that
moderate residential and serious commercial problems have been
experienced in the Lakeview area.   Most lots in the Lakeview
area are 1/2-acre or less in size.   Numerous septic tank
systems, marginal soil conditions,  rapid growth and develop-
ment on rather small lots,  and an aquifer  formation vulnerable
to pollution combine to produce public health  and water-quality     Rev'd*
problems.
* Revised from Draft
                              i i i

-------
C.  ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
          Several alternatives were evaluated including no-
action, upgrading on-site disposal systems, constructing a
municipal collection and treatment system, and participating
in a regional system.
          The no-action alternative will result in continued
installation of individual septic tank systems to accommodate
growth.  Septic tank use can neither be appreciably altered
nor limited under existing controls.   Increasing pollution
problems can be expected which will eventually affect the
public health and lessen the attractiveness of the area.
These conditions will mandate remedial measures for wastewater
management, restricted growth, curtailed water uses, or other
action.  The no-action alternative will have the benefit of
eliminating or deferring project related environmental impacts
as well as any major public investment in wastewater facili-
ties in the area, but will fail to address the basic objectives
of pollution control and public health protection.
          Properly operated and upgraded on-site disposal
systems will lessen the occurrence of absorption-field failure
and associated health and pollution problems; however, in-
creased local ground water contamination from nitrate and
chloride will continue in general proportion to growth.
Aeration units or intermittent sand filters are the most
effective means of upgrading septic tank systems, but are
expensive.  Cluster systems are an alternative for isolated
developments in problem areas, but providing such systems for
a static community is more economical and manageable than for
a community as Lakeview with its rapid growth and seasonal
tourist population.  The capital, operating, and land costs
for upgraded on-site systems in the Lakeview area will be high

-------
and long-term reliance on such systems will have serious
economic and environmental drawbacks, and will pose many
management difficulties as well.
          There is no existing or planned regional wastewater
system in the area, and the low population density of much of
the region and rugged and rocky terrain make a regional system
economically infeasible for the foreseeable future.
          A wastewater collection-and-treatment system for the
town of Bull Shoals (three miles across the dam from Lakeview)
is nearing the construction stage.   Connecting these two
systems, while possibly cost-effective, appears to be infeasible     Rev'd*
because of community desires, timing, and health concern about
routing raw wastewater across the White River.
          Water reuse is not a viable alternative in the
Lakeview area because of the abundant high-quality water
resources available and the lack of potential  users.   Land
application is a possible alternative to treatment and dis-
charge; however, potentially suitable sites are very limited
and a cost advantage is unlikely.
          The treatment and discharge alternatives are a
contact-stabilization activated-sludge plant followed by dis-
infection and sand filtration; a trick!ing-filter plant followed
by disinfection and sand filtration; and an aerated lagoon fol-
lowed by sedimentation, disinfection, and sand filtration.   The
aerated lagoon system was selected as the most practicable because
of its proven ability to meet effluent standards,  simplicity, ease
of operation, and low capital and operating costs.   Chemical  precipi-
tation and dechlorination or other means of disinfection will be
required by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control  and Ecology.
The proposed system is expected to meet White  River effluent require-
ments.  Sludge removal and burial  will be required at 10- to 20-year
intervals.

* Revised from Draft

-------
          An alternative treatment plant site with discharge
to Bull Shoals Lake was rejected because of its need for added
nutrient-removal treatment, its proximity to heavily used
recreation and residential areas, and costly pumping require-
ments for serving areas below the dam.
D.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ERA'S PROPOSED ACTION TO AWARD
ADDITIONAL GRANTS
          The proposed treatment plant is designed to serve
3,000 persons at 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) for an
average wastewater flow of 300,000 gal per day (gpd) in  the
1995 design year.  The present (1977) wastewater flow is esti-
mated at 135,000 gpd, based upon a population equivalent of
1,350 persons at 100 gpcd.  The collection system will serve
the Town of Lakeview, Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills, Bull Shoals
State Park, the  Lakeview Recreation Area, and the Gaston Road
area.  It will consist of about 90,000 linear feet (Tin ft) of
8- and 10-inch gravity collectors, four pump stations and
11,300 Tin ft of force-main, and a main line to the treatment
plant consisting of 16,500 Tin ft of 12-inch gravity sewer.
          The treatment plant will require about 8 acres of
land.  Unit processes of flow measurement, bar screening,
aerated lagoons, secondary settling, disinfection, and rapid
sand filtration  will achieve a high degree of treatment.   The
total cost of the proposed system is estimated at $3,227,000.        Rev'd*
The average monthly cost per household unit, including the
cost of the private sewer line hook-up and filling existing
septic tanks with gravel, will be about $13.00 initially and
decrease to about $7.03 as customers are added over the design
period.  The cost of the project will not be an unreasonable
economic burden  for most residents, although the monthly
charge will cause financial difficulties for some.
 *  Revised  from Draft; cost estimates and impacts updated.
                               vi

-------
          Constructing the proposed project will take about
one year.  If the project proceeds in a localized step-by-step
manner, and reasonable precautions and mitigative measures are
taken, the short-term adverse effects on water and air quality
and the biologic environment will be minor.  There will be
localized short-term noise, community disruption, and incon-
venience even with mitigative measures.   Lakeview and the
region will benefit economically by construction employment
opportunities and secondary economic stimulation.
          The primary long-term water-quality benefits will be
protecting and improving gound water quality and assuring that
future degradation of surface waters, as well as ground water,
from nonpoint septic tanks sources will  be largely controlled
in the Lakeview area.  Health hazards from contaminated well
water supplies will be reduced, and unsanitary effluent-surfacing
from malfunctioning on-site disposal systems will be eliminated.
The main biological concerns are the possible long-term effects
of the effluent discharge on the important White River trout
fishery.   With dechlorination, the Lakeview discharge will
have a minimal effect on trout and other aquatic species.   The
adverse visual effects of the treatment plant will  be minimized
by landscaping.
          Two archeologically important sites, were identified
in the vicinity of the proposed plant.   Adverse archeological
effects will be avoided by shifting the treatment plant site a
short distance to the west.  The contractor will be alerted to
watch for evidence of prehistoric occupation during construction
in the valley.
          The secondary effects of the project on growth and
development will not be great within the project design period,
but the ultimate rate of development and density will be
                              vn

-------
altered because of increased value and the accelerated develop-
ment of unplatted areas, and avoidance of future sanitary and
environmental growth-constraints from septic tank systems.
With or without the project, Lakeview will experience rapid
growth because of its basic attractions and available develop-
ment sites.

E.   COMMENTS REQUESTED AND RECEIVED
          The Draft EIS was made available to the following
Federal, state, and local interests for review and comment.
                                                         Received
     Advisory Council on Historic Preservation              X
     US Department of Agriculture                           X
     US Department of Commerce                              X
     US Department of Housing and Urban Development
     US Department of Health, Education and Welfare         X
     US Department of Interior                              X
     US Department of Transportation
     US Army Corps of Engineers                             X
     International Boundary and Water Commission
     Federal Energy Administration                          X
     Federal Power Commission
     Energy  Research and Development Administration
     Environmental Protection Agency
     State of Arkansas                                      X
     Cities  and Counties in Project Area                    X
     Environmental and Conservation Associations
     Organizations and Civic Groups                         X
     Businesses and Individuals                             X
     News  Media

           A  public hearing was held on Monday, August, 21, 1978,
in  the Community Building, Lakeview, Arkansas.
                              vm

-------
Draft Statement in Federal Register July 24, 1978.
Final Statement to EPA
                     IX

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

   Section                                                  Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

     A.    Problems and Issues                                  i
     B.    Environmental Setting                                i
     C.    Alternatives Evaluated                              iv
     D.    Environmental Impacts of EPA's Proposed Action
          to Award Additional Grants                          vi
     E.    Comments Requested and Received                      viii
1.    INTRODUCTION

          1.1  Background                                     1
          1.2  Issues                                         2
          1.3  Federal Policy                                 3

2.    PROBLEMS

          2.1  On-Site Systems                                5
          2.2  Water Quality and Public Health                7
          2.3  Growth and Associated Wastewater
               Problems                                      10

3.    ALTERNATIVES

          3.1  No Action                                     12
          3.2  Upgrading On-Site Systems                     14
          3.3  Regional Wastewater System or
               Connection to Bull Shoals Plant               24
          3.4  Municipal Wastewater System Design
               Alternatives                                  25
          3.5  Alternatives Available to EPA                 31

4.    DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

          4.1  Treatment System                              33
          4.2  Collection System                             34
          4.3  Land and Operation and Maintenance
               Requirements                                  34
          4.4  Construction Schedule                         35
          4.5  Costs                                         35

-------
5.    ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF EPA's PROPOSED ACTION        Page

          5.1  Geology, Soils, and Topography                37
               5.1.1  Effects of Construction on Geology,
                      Soils,, and Topography                  37
               5.1.2  Effects of Operation on Geology,
                      Soils, and Topography                  38
          5.2  Hydrology                                     38
               5.2.1  Surface Water Setting                  38
               5.2.2  Ground Water Setting                   40
               5.2.3  Effects of Construction on
                      Hydro!ogic Elements                    41
               5.2.4  Effects of Operation on
                      Hydro!ogic Elements                    42
               5.2.5  Reliability Factors                    44
          5.3  Biology                                       45
               5.3.1  Terrestrial Setting                    45
               5.3.2  Aquatic Setting                        46
               5.3.3  Effects of Construction on Fish
                      and Wildlife                           48
               5.3.4  Effects of Construction on Vegetation  49
               5.3.5  Effects of Operation on Fish and
                      Wildlife                               50
          5.4  Socio-Economics                               53
               5.4.1  Socio-Economic Setting                 53
               5.4.2  Effects of Construction on
                      Socio-Economic Elements                57
               5.4.3  Effects of Operation on
                      Socio-Economic Elements                58
          5.5  Air and Sound Quality                         65
               5.5.1  Effects of Construction on
                      Air and Sound Quality                  65
               5.5.2  Effects of Operation on
                      Air and Sound Quality  .                66
          5.6  Archeology and History                        67
               5.6.1  Effects of Construction on
                      Archeology and History                 67
               5.6.2  Effects of Operation on
                      Archeology and History                 68

6.    COORDINATION

          6.1  Coordination and  Public Participation          69
          6.2  Correspondence During Draft EIS  Preparation   69
          6.3  Review Process and Preparation of Final
               EIS                                           70

-------
                                                            Page
Literature Cited and Other References  Consulted               162
Appendix A - Correspondence During  Draft  EIS  Preparation        A
                              xn

-------
                                            :                Follows
                    Exhibits                                 Page
 1.   Lakeview, Arkansas Location Map                           5
 2.   Soils Map                                                 6
 3.   Permeability and Subsurface Feaures                       6
 4.   Topography                                                6
 5.   Septic Systems Survey                                     7
 6.   Septic Systems Survey Summary                             7
 7.   Ground Water Quality                                      8
 8.   On-Site Systems Performance                             16
 9.   On-Site Systems Costs                                   17
10.   Preliminary Cost Estimate for Connecting
     the Lakeview and Bull Shoals Sewer Systems              25
10A.  Alternatives Comparison                                 32
11.   Schematic of Treatment Facility                         33
12.   Preliminary Layout of Proposed System                   34
13.   Financing and Cost of Proposed System                   35
14.   Water Quality - White River Below Bull Shoals Dam       39
15.   Water Quality - Bull Shoals Lake and White River        39
16.   Vegetative Communities                 .     .  :          45
17.   Lakeview, Arkansas Population Data                      55
18.   Population Trends of Surrounding Towns                  55
19.   Land Use in Lakeview Area                               56
20.   Zoning and Detailed Land Use                            56
21.   Recreational Visitors at Lakeview Area Facilities       63
                              xm

-------
                         1.   INTRODUCTION

1.1  BACKGROUND
          The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(FWPCA), was enacted to restore and maintain the integrity of
the Nation's waters.  Because municipal sewage is a major
source of water pollution, Section 201 of the law provided
Federal grant assistance (up to 75% of project costs) to
municipalities for the construction of wastewater treatment
facilities.
          The Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) awards
Construction Grants in a three-step process:  1) initial
planning, 2) detailed design, and 3) actual construction.  In
addition to providing grant funds, EPA (or the delegated State
agency) issues permits for all pollutant discharges into the
Nation's water.  These National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits require compliance with all applicable
effluent limitations.
          The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires Federal agencies to prepare detailed environmental
impact statements (EIS) on major Federal actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment.   Section
511(c)(l) of FWPCA requires that NEPA apply to the awarding of
grants for public wastewater treatment systems under Section
201 of the same act.  EPA has determined that the funding of
the proposed wastewater treatment facilities for Lakeview
constitutes a Federal action requiring the preparation of an
EIS.  The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was issued on
June 30, 1977.

-------
1.2  ISSUES
          The major issues concerned with wastewater management
planning in Lakeview are as follows:
     a.    The severity of septic tank system problems and the
          conditions for on-site disposal in the Lakeview area
          need to be further defined.
     b.    Possible public health hazards and water quality
          degradation from septic tank systems in the Lakeview
          area need further evaluation.
     c.    The alternatives for upgrading on-site disposal
          systems may be more cost-effective than constructing
          the proposed collection and treatment system.
     d.    The cost of the proposed collection and treatment
          system may be too great for the local residents.
          The estimated monthly sewer charge has not been
          presented, and some consider construction cost
          estimates optimistically low.   The large number of
          persons with limited fixed incomes is cited in
          support of this view.
     e.    The issue of the sewage system's effect on the
          amount and density of development and the desir-
          ability of such growth is of great concern.   Lower-
          density development in accordance with proper  septic
          tank disposal-requirements may be preferable.
     f.    The current water-use estimates need further evalua-
          tion.   Also, whether several jurisdictions outside
          the Lakeview incorporated area will participate in
          the project as planned is unconfirmed.   These  juris-
          dictions include the Corps of  Engineers Lakeview
          Recreation Area, Bull  Shoals State Park,  and the
          Edgewood Bay and Leisure Hills developments.

-------
     g.    Project effects,  including damage to foliage, streets,
          driveways,  and yards;  the noise and disruption from
          extensive blasting;  effects on archeological  resources;
          damage to the fishing  and tourism industry on the
          White River because  of the discharge and visual
          effects of the proposed sewage treatment plant;  and
          possible surface  and ground water pollution from
          sewer leakage, particularly where the lines will be
          laid in excavated rock very close to Bull  Shoals
          Lake, are of concern.
          The project's direct environmental  effects are
important, but the fundamental issues concern the project's
economic and environmental  justification as compared with
continued use of on-site disposal systems, and the secondary
effects relating to growth  and development.

1.3  FEDERAL POLICY
          The current EPA policy on construction grant facility
plan requirements for new sewage collection systems  is discussed
below.   (EPA, 1977c.)
     a.   Grant Eligibility
          Communities existing on October 18, 1972,  may be
eligible for new sewage collection systems under FWPCA.  A
community includes any area with substantial  human habitation
and, for grant eligibility, the  bulk (generally, two-thirds)
of the sewer system flow design-capacity should be for waste-
waters originating from the October 18, 1972, population.
Treatment works funded under the grants program must also
represent the most cost-effective alternative.
          A population density of 1.7 persons per acre (one
household for every two acres) meets the requirement for
substantial  human habitation,  and density is  evaluated  block-
by-block or by areas of five acres or less.   Densities  of  less
than one household for every two acres  rarely result in  serious
localized pollution or public  health problems from using

-------
properly operated on-site systems and are not considered
substantial habitation warranting collection sewers.
          EPA has become increasingly concerned over the past    Rev'd*
few years with the high cost and energy consumption in many
communities with wastewater treatment facilities which must
achieve levels of treatment beyond secondary treatment.  Grant
funding of projects requiring treatment more stringent than
secondary is receiving more scrutiny to insure that these effluent
requirements are justifiableo  Due to the necessity to maintain
the extreme high quality of the White River at the discharge site,
the Region is fully satisfied that treatment more stringent than
secondary is justifiable at Lakeview, Arkansas.
     b.   Cost-Effectiveness
          New collector sewers should be funded only when
existing on-site disposal  systems are creating a public health
problem, contaminating ground water, or violating point-source
discharge requirements.  Specific documentation of these
problems and malfunctioning disposal systems,  as well  as
discussions of limiting site-characteristics such as geology,
soil permeability, topography, and ground water levels are
required.
          The alternatives to be evaluated for cost-effective-
ness include but are not limited to measures to improve opera-
tion and maintenance of existing septic tanks,  new septic tanks,
holding tanks and "honey wagons," upgrading septic tanks with
mound systems and alternate leaching fields, cluster systems,
water conservation, and limited-area sewer service.
     c.   Disclosure of Costs and Implementation
          Public notice must be given of the estimated costs
for collection system projects, including monthly charges for
operation, maintenance, and debt service.   The  overall  policy
applies to new grant applications for projects  including
collection systems, and the cost-effectiveness  requirements
apply to projects such as  Lakeview for which the Step  1  Plan
is yet to be approved.

* Revised from Draft          4

-------
                             2.   PROBLEMS

          The proposed project was initiated to provide waste-
water collection and treatment for the Lakeview area in north
central Arkansas, (see Exhibit 1) which currently relies on
individual septic tank systems.   There are about 375 septic
tank systems in the project area based on the number of housing
units and commercial establishments.   Important factors in-
fluencing the performance of the on-site disposal systems
include soil characteristics, topography, geology, ground
water, and density of development.  The principal public
health concerns from septic tank disposal systems relate to
unsanitary conditions from effluent surfacing, back-up problems,
and contamination of surface and ground water, particularly,
drinking water supplies and contact-recreation waters.
          Regulations under the 1977 Arkansas Sewage Disposal
Systems Act have superseded the Department of Health Bulletin
#9 "Septic Tank Systems."  The public policy and purposes of
the Act include eliminating and preventing health hazards by
regulating individual sewage disposal systems and to encourage
the use of community sewerage systems when economically
feasible wherever density of development or the lack of
acceptable soils make individual sewage systems impractical.

2.1  ON-SITE SYSTEMS
          Adequate soils are required for satisfactory septic
tank systems.  Field percolation test results are generally in
the 12- to 20-minute range, which is within the 45-minute
limit  required by the Department of Health for septic tank
systems.  Field tests, however, are not directly comparable to
the controlled Soil Conservation Service tests which are run

-------
                 MISSOURI

TEXAS

                 LOUISIANA
                                                             EXHIBIT 1
                                                        LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
                                                          LOCATION MAP

-------
in the laboratory because of variations in the test, time of
year, location, and the person making the test.  All of the
Lakeview area soil types, except the Healing silt found near
the White River, are rated by the Soil Conservation Service as
having severe limitations for septic tank system installation
because of slow percolation, swelling characteristics, shallow
bedrock, rock content, and slope.  (See Exhibit 2.)  Several
of the soils have a heavy clay or other dense layer (fragipan)
so that the top two feet may percolate satisfactorily, but further
percolation downward is hindered, particularly during wet
seasons, when the clays become saturated and swell.   This can
cause septic tank effluent-surfacing-
          The depth to rock is highly irregular in the Lakeview;
area because of the susceptibility of carbonate rock to both
solution and weathering.   More than the 6-ft minimum required
for septic tank systems is generally expected on the flat
ridge area with the steep slopes having less cover.   Contractors'
reports of a minimum 6-ft soil cover may not always describe
the entire absorption-field area.  The topography is character-
ized by carbonate rock, sinkholes,  subterranean drainage,
solution channels, and caves.   Leachate from septic tank
systems percolates through this subterranean drainage system
and will eventually reach a ground water aquifer.   (See
Exhibits 3 and 4.)
          A survey was made in September and October,  2,977,  to
determine the extent of septic-tank-system problems, with
emphasis on identifying systems which have had problems.
Baxter County Health Department records were reviewed and a
field survey was made of the condition of about 50 septic tank
systems.  Information on past problems such as odor, runoff,
and the tank cleaning-and-maintenance history was collected

-------
                                                               SEPTIC TANK SYSTEMS  RATINGS'
                                                                                                    //
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           tn
OWWK  KM.C
717
761
767
771 OR TO
786
809
CG
NT
   1-31
C  3-8J
P  8-12?,
E 12-20?
U  3-81
R  8-20*
S 20-HOX
LINOSIDE WILT)
TONTI  (CHERTY SILT)
NIXA (VERY CHERTY SILT)
GASSVILLE (VERY  CHERTY SILT)
CAPTINA  (SILT)
HEALING (SILT)
ARKANA - MOKO
NIXA - GASSVILLE
SEVERE (FLOODING.  IETNESS.  DEEP)   •                     "
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY.  DEPTH TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY  81  TO 10']
SEVERE (PERCS SLOHLY.  OFTEN STEEP SLOPES. DEPTH  TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY «' TO  12')
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY.  OFTEN STEEP SLOPES. DEPTH  TO ROCK APPROXIMATELY 6' TO  12')
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY.  SHALLOW DEPTH TO ROCK. CLAY  LAYER AT  2")
SLIGHT TO SEVERE  (DEPENDING ON FLOODING)
SEVERE (PERCS SLOILY.  SHALLOI DEPTH TO ROCK. OFTEN STEEP SLOPES)
SEE RESPECTIVE  SOILS
                                                               •SLIGHT  - FEI  OR NO  PROBLEMS
                                                                MODERATE - REQUIRES SPECIAL CARE
                                                                SEVERE  - USE  IS HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           M
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           I-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           D

-------

-------
-. y  .-^ms/j
'.•'/•  .•.-•:'% *vvc<
                                                                   I   I   0-«»

                                                                   iy y vi   1-20 •

                                                                   v / y\

-------
through owner meetings.  The apparent absorption-field function
was field checked for evidence of effluent surfacing.
          Of the 59 systems studied in the proposed project
area and possible future service areas, 33 had experienced        Rev'd*
some problem, mainly backup, effluent surfacing, or odors.
Twenty-three of these required rebuilding or expansion.  (See
Exhibits 5 and 6.)  The problems with these systems were
usually identified by the surfacing of septic tank effluent
because the effluent was not being absorbed in the leach
field.   Several residents indicated their problem was caused
by poor or improper initial system installation.  About two-
thirds of the septic tank systems surveyed in Lakeview are
never pumped out according to the owners.
          Information on the lot and absorption-field sizes of
the residents interviewed was not always available during the
survey.  From the limited information available, septic tank
system-problems seem to occur on residential  lots of all  sizes
and not just on smaller lots with limited leach field areas.
Commercial lots in the downtown area are relatively small,
many being less than a quarter of an acre, and many of the
septic tank system problems were ip this area and in nearby
residential lots.   Survey results indicate that moderate
residential and serious commercial septic tank system-problems
have been experienced in the Lakeview area.

2.2  WATER QUALITY AND PUBLIC HEALTH
          Baxter County health officials are unaware of any
disease occurrence in the Lakeview area attributable to septic
tank systems, problems.  The reported waterborne-type disease
incidence in the County for 1974-1976 is low and does not
indicate acute sanitation problems.   (In assessing waterborne-
disease records, authorities suggest the actual incidence may
be many times the number reported.)

* Revised from Draft; see Exhibit 6.
                             7

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             QDMERON
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  "HO*  RESOtT
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  SUNSET MINT RESORT

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  RIDSHSEST RESORT
AETCHENBERCER           (EISS
                                                                     VIEW    d'S E   ARE/A
HUBOR LIGHTS MBia(j   /"    /

       CHER CUtM'fiiT
                                                                                                                                                                                        ANTIQUE  •-SOWERS
                                                                                                                                                                                        SHOP
                                                                                                                                                                                                         LEGEND

                                                                                                                                                                                              Q  WPROLEM

                                                                                                                                                                                              Q  PROJLEH

                                                                                                                                                                                              A.  PROBLEH AW SYSTEM REPLACED OR EXPANDED
                                                                                                                                                      Of   40ti          IfOO'

-------
                  -,:=..   EXHIBIT  6  ...,   ..... ,=.
                  SEPTIC SYSTEMS  SURVEY SUMMARY
              - '  'Jtev'd**
Location'
Commercial and
Downtown Lakeview
Glen Cove
Forest Shores
Edgewood Bay
Leisure Hills
Gas,ton Road
     Project Area Total
Eagle Ridge, Howard
Creek and Nubbin Ridge'
Road Areas *
     Total with Adjoining
     Areas
Number of , Number of , Number of
Systems Systems With Systems Repl a
Surveye'd Problems •• or Expanded
27
6
,4
• 8
3
_2 -. ,
50
13 ' 9:
4 4
A A
' '• ." T ,•" "
'2 ' ;: 0
' ^ :---- ••• -:- 2"
._! - .' -I "
26 20
                            59
33
 3

23
 * Adjoining but not within proposed project area.
** Revised from Draft; corrections based on public comments.

-------
          Although the Lakeview area is partially served by
the Lakeview Midway Water Association which obtains its water
from Lake Norfork via Mountain Home, many public and private
well supplies are also used in the area.   The smaller wells
use the relatively shallow (to about 500 ft) Cotter-Jefferson
City aquifer which is a fractured limestone formation.   Pollution
is a serious hazard in such formations since large volumes of
pollution can enter and travel rapidly through the ground
water system.
          Nitrate removal by septic tank and absorption-field
systems is limited.   Excessive nitrates (greater than 10 mg/1)
in drinking water may cause methemoglobinemia, a serious and
sometimes fatal poisoning in infants.  An increase in chlorides
over normal background levels is another early indicator of
pollution.
          A sampling of twelve wells in the Lakeview area for
a select group of parameters which best indicate wastewater
pollution was made because of the lack of shallow ground water
quality data.  Seven of the wells were checked for coliform
organisms.  Exhibit 7 shows the well characteristics and
results, with comparative values for State Department of
Health analyses for public water supplies.  The locations of
the wells sampled are noted in Exhibit 5.
          The results of the chemical sampling indicate elevated
levels of nitrate and chloride in ground water near the tourist
and commercial center of Lakeview, and the results correlate
well with one another.  Background levels of chloride and
nitrate appear to be less than 10 mg/1 and less than 1.5 mg/1,
respectively.  Concentrations up to 50 mg/1 chloride and 4.6
mg/1 nitrate were found.  The higher concentrations did not

-------
                                                   EXHIBIT 7
                                            GROUNEWATER  QUALITY
   WELL IDENTI-
WELL/CAS ING
iTFDTH (FT')
1100/500
•330/306
380/303
840/453
235/-
470/47
136/-
450/-
147/-
360/-
-
90/-
165/-
) -
311/24
f) 21-6/70
_
DATE
5-76
5-76
5-76
5-76
5-75
5-75
5-75
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
10-77
im
10-77
10-77
1O-77
10-77
10-77
NITRATE
As N (.ma/1)
< 0.01
0.44
0.68
0.18
0.64
0.85
0.53
1.2
1.0
_ (3)
4.6
2.6
1.8
$3 (2)
1,2
•0.4
0.9
0.1
1.4
CHLORIDE
(mg/1)
2.5
2.0
4.0
2.0
10.5
3.3
6.6
6.6
6.8
4.3
40.0
11.4
15.3
$'?2)
5.7
5.7
5.4
6.5
7.5
TURBIDITY
(me/1)
0.4
0.3
0.2
< 0.1
5.
3.
10.
0.3
28.
2.
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.7
0.1
0.3
0.6
1.2
0.4
TOTAL
TOTAL ORGANIC
PHOSPHATE CARBON
As P(aia/l) (mg/1)
-
-
0.02
0.10
0.02
< 0.02
<0.02
0.06
8$ (2)
<0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
< 0.02
0.03
-
-
11
11
10
9 '
8
10
7
9
15
10
9
12
TOTAL
COLIFORM
(Per 100 ml)
-
-
TNTC (4)
0
10
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
TNTC
-


-
fc
Town of Bull Shoals
Edgewood Bay #1
Edgewood Bay #2
Edgewood Bay #3     /, •>
Corps Rec. Area #100V/;,
Corps Rec . Area #101 *>l >
Corps Rec. Area #102
Leisure Hills Subd.
  - Laundromat    .
C hi c k' s Apartment s *• •*
 (Rt. 178-Lakeview)
Riverside T. P.
 (Gaston Rd.)
Bay Breeze Motel
 (Rt. 178-Lakeview)
Midlakes Motel & Realty
 (Rt. 178 & LakeviewJ
Dunn-Boat Dock Lane^'
 (Lakeview)
Huxford-Rt.
 (Lakeview)
Conklin-Deer Path Rd.
 (Lakeview-Glen Cove)
Sommers-Ravine Dr.
 (Lakeview-Forest Shores)
Montie-Howard Ck. Cutoff
 (•Nr. Nubbin Ridge Rd. &
  178)
Ward-Lake Drive (Lakeview)21-6/70
Paige - Rt. 178
 (Near Leisure Hills)

(1) Not used for potable  water.
 2} Result? by second  laboratory;  N03 by Brucine Method.  (NOj was 3.2 Mg/1 using ultraviolet spectrophotometric method.)
 3) Chlorine interference;  after decKlorination satisfactory result still not obtained.
(4) Too numerous to count.

-------
approach the drinking water health standard of 10 mg/1 for
nitrate or the taste standard of 250 mg/1 for chloride.
Contamination largely from on-site disposal systems is strongly
indicated since there are no major agricultural or other
pollution sources in the vicinity.   The total coliform analyses
are of concern, and indicate bacteriological contamination of
these private water supplies.   Coliform bacteria too numerous
to count were found in five wells,  indicating a potential
health hazard (e.g., enteric disease).
          Details pertaining to local water wells such as
depth, construction, and vertical zone of influence, together
with data on the geological formations and porosity of subsoil
strata, should be considered in determining the safe allowable
distance between wells and subsurface disposal systems.
          In Arkansas the location of all subsurface absorption
systems must meet the following minimum distance requirements:
          Public water-supply lakes               300 ft
          Any source of domestic water supply     100 ft
          Streams, lakes, and ponds               100 ft
          Dwellings                                10 ft
          Large trees                              10 ft
          Property lines                           10 ft
          Water lines                         .     10 ft
          The surface-water quality of Bull Shoals Lake and
the White River in the Lakeview area are excellent.   (See
Exhibits 14 and 15 of Section 5.2.)  There have been incidents ;
of effluent surfacing and runoff to the lake but no obvious
local pollution effects or discernible water-quality changes
have been noted at the monitoring stations above and below the
dam.  Septic tank effluent surfacing represents a potential
health hazard.

-------
2.3  GROWTH AND ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER PROBLEMS
          Although the time period for basing population
trends is very short, Lakeview and the surrounding region are
experiencing rapid growth and the proposed project area is
reasonably projected to have a 1995 population equivalent of
about 3,000 as compared with 1,350 at present.*  Substantial
growth can also be expected in unincorporated areas adjoining
Lakeview.
          Population density and control are of great concern
in relation to the adequacy of septic tank systems.  The
present population densities are on the order of two-to-four
persons per acre in the residential areas.   The future density
may depend upon zoning requirements, septic tank leach field
limitations, and real estate development plans.
          More than 75 percent of the 95 residential septic
tank systems installed in the Lakeview area from 1973 to 1977
were on lots of 1/2-acre or less.   The residential lot sizes
in Lakeview are typically in the range of 1/4 to 1/2 acre,
with an average of about 1/3 acre.   The minimum State require-
ments for septic tank absorption field area can generally be met.
There are 212 existing residential  units, and 555 vacant lots       Rev'd**
are platted within incorporated Lakeview.  Since recommended
minimum-lot size for septic tank system use is generally 1/2
to 1 acre or more in areas of substantial development, continued
development at the established lot density will foster septic
tank system problems.  During wet weather,  mutual interference
and soil saturation from septic tank systems which are too
numerous and close will occur.  Ground water degradation will
increase.  Lot sizes will frequently be inadequate to allow

 * Includes population equivalent for visitors to Bull Shoals
   State Park and Lakeview Recreation Area.
** Revised from Draft; for clarification.
                             10

-------
expansion in case of absorption field failure.   Soil limita-
tions and the seasonal influx of tourists at the commercial
establishments will further aggravate the problem.
          In summary, numerous septic tank systems, marginal
soil conditions, rapid growth and development on rather small
lots, and an aquifer formation vulnerable to pollution combine
to produce a situation that is of public health and water
quality concern.  A moderate degree of local sanitation problems
caused by surfacing of septic tank effluent has been documented.
                             11

-------
                           3.   ALTERNATIVES

          Several possible alternatives are discussed including
no action, upgrading the present on-site disposal systems,
constructing a municipal collection and treatment system, and
participating in a regional wastewater treatment system.

3.1  NO ACTION
          The no-action alternative will result in continued
installation of individual septic tank systems to accommodate
growth.  There is evidence from EPA survey of moderate nitrate
and chloride pollution of the shallow Cotter-Jefferson City
aquifer in the downtown Lakeview area.  The expected area
growth and development, combined with continued use of on-site
disposal systems, will result in more widespread and increased
pollution levels in the Cotter-Jefferson City aquifer.   Organic
pollutants, bacteria, and other pathogens will probably become
a serious health problem, particularly with continued use of
shallow-well water supplies.  The deeper Roubidoux aquifer is
less likely to be significantly affected by local on-site
disposal practices.  The deep Gunter Sandstone formation should
not be influenced by local on-site disposal systems.
          Septic tank development cannot be appreciably altered
or limited under existing controls.  Without the project or
major  improvements in current on-site disposal methods, increas-
ing problems from septic tanks can be expected, resulting in
further groundwater contamination, absorption-field failure
with unsanitary surfacing of septic tank effluent, local
surface-water contamination, difficult and costly repairs, and
inconvenience.  In many cases, small lot sizes will severely
                            12

-------
limit the alternative of installing new or expanded absorption
fields, making corrective measures extremely difficult and
expensive.   Acute problems will eventually affect the public
health and lessen the attractiveness of the area.  This could
necessitate remedial measures for wastewater management,
restricted growth, curtailed water uses, or other action.   In
the event federal funding is not available, Lakeview will  fund
any improvements without federal environmental-impact review.
          Without the project, the Lakeview community (including
areas outside the town limits) is projected to increase from
530 to 2,270 year-round residents between 1977 and 1995, a
38.6% increase for each five-year period.   Some of the factors
supporting this future growth are:  Lakeview and the surrounding
area have grown rapidly because of mild climate and low tax
rates; the location of Bull Shoals Lake combined with attractive
residential development; the scenic and quiet atmosphere which
makes it attractive for retired persons; Bull Shoals State
Park and the White River; and the natural  beauty of the physical
environment that offers a wide range of recreational oppor-
tunities.
          Without the project, the town should expect about 50
new multi-family dwelling units to be constructed.   Septic
system conditions indicate that dwelling unit density should
not exceed about two dwelling units per acre.  A total  of  25
acres is presently zoned for multi-family development,  which
means that 25 two-family structures, 12 four-family structures,
or 8 six-family structures could prudently be built under
present conditions.   However, it would be possible to build
more than 50 units under existing regulations.
          The no-action alternative will have the benefit  of
eliminating or deferring project related environmental  impacts
as well as any major public investment in wastewater facilities
                            13

-------
in the project area; however, it will fail to address the
basic objectives of pollution control and public health laws
and programs.

3.2  UPGRADING ON-SITE SYSTEMS
          The septic system, though simple in concept, is
actually a complex physical, chemical, and biological system.
The system performance depends on design, construction tech-
niques, waste characteristics, hydraulic loading, soils,
geology, topography, and periodic maintenance.   The prime
function of the tank is solids reduction, removal, and storage.
Removal of BOD, bacteria, and other pollutants in the tank is
limited, and the effluent is malodorous and of poor quality.
          The absorption-field is the most important treatment
component and the element most subject to failure.  Because of
various clogging effects, the long-term infiltration rate of
sewage into permeable soils has been shown eventually to
decline to about the same negligible quantity regardless of
the difference in soil permeabilities in the beginning
(Cotteral and Norris, 1969).  Biological factors are the most
important, and the major reduction in infiltrative capacity
results from an organic mat at the liquid-soil  interface.
Clogging varies directly with the amount of suspended solids
in the tank effluent.  Anaerobic (without oxygen or septic)
conditions lead to further clogging through the growth of
slimes and chemical deposition.
          On-site disposal systems can be upgraded by using
improved systems and better system management and regulation.
Under the new Sewage Disposal Act regulations the Arkansas
Department of Public Health allows the following reduction in
the required absorption-field size for improved systems:
                            14

-------
Dosing Tank - 10 percent, Filtration - 10 percent, Aeration -
15 percent, Curtain Drain - 5 percent.  Reductions will be        i
allowed only where on-site disposal conditions are good.
Upgrading existing systems will correspondingly benefit septic
tank and absorption field performance, as well as improve
effluent quality.  These features are not required by the
Health Department and have been used very little in the Lakeview
area.
          Where problems with conventional septic tank soil-
absorption systems have occurred, emphasis may be given to
improving effluent quality to enhance soil infiltration and
reduce the dependence on soils for final  treatment.   Of the
numerous alternatives available, aeration units and intermittent
sand filters seem to,pbe the most promising.   The dosing tank
assists the absorption field but does not improve the quality
of the applied effluent.   Reduction in flow or waste strength
may also increase the life of soil absorption fields although
reliable criteria have not been developed.
          Resting a clogged absorption field for several          Rev'd*
months can restore the infiltrative capacity of the  system.
By adding a second absorption field after failure of the
original field, the system can be operated by alternately
resting each field and can be expected to last for the life
of the dwelling.   As with the dosing tank,  the quality of the
applied effluent is not improved.   Since  lot sizes in Lakeview
are frequently less than one-half acre and may not provide
sufficient area for alternate fields, the condemnation and
use of neighboring vacant lots for the alternate absorption
field is a possible alternative.   Applying the absorption
field area specifications of the Arkansas Regulations,  up
  Revised from Draft; see A.  W.  Weitkamp's comments of Sept.  19,
  1978, and Arkansas Department of Health comments of Oct.  13,  1978.

                            15

-------
to five surrounding two- or three-bedroom homes might utilize
a vacant one-third acre lot for their alternate absorption
fields.  This dual absorption field alternative would improve
but not completely solve the problem of sewage surfacing.  The
danger of ground water contamination would continue, and for
this reason the Arkansas Department of Health has indicated
this to be an unacceptable alternative at Lakeview.
3.2.1  Performance
          The performance of different on-site disposal systems
is commonly measured in terms of organics, bacteria, and
solids removal.  Contaminants such as nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) and heavy metals are only moderately reduced by
any conventional form of wastewater treatment.  The typical
levels of organics (biochemical oxygen demand, or BOD), sus-
pended solids, and fecal coliform bacteria are shown in
Exhibit 8 for raw sewage, and septic tank, aeration tank, and
sand filter effluent (Otis et al., 1977; EPA, 1977b; Bailey
and Wallman, 1971).  The design levels for the proposed treat-
ment plant are given for comparison.
          Coliform concentrations are still high following
aeration or sand filtration.  Much dependence has, therefore,
been placed on the absorption field for bacterial reduction,
but certain Lakeview area soils and geology dp not assure
acceptable performance.  Considerable organic pollution can
also be expected from conventional septic tank soil-absorption
systems, since organics removal by soils, including many of
the Arkansas soils studied (Ransom et al., 1975), is frequently
limited under anaerobic conditions.  The organics (total
organic carbon) concentrations measured in shallow ground
water  in the Lakeview area were higher than are normally
expected in ground water supplies (See Exhibit 7).
                            16

-------
                                     EXHIBIT 8

                          ON-SITE SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE
                           BOD
                          (mg/1)

Raw sewage                 250
Septic tank effluent     140-180
Aeration tank effluent*   40-60
Sand-filter effluent        10
Proposed treatment plant     5
Suspended
Solids (mg/1)

     300+
    50-100
    40- 70
      10
      15
Fecal
Coliform (per 100ml)


106
10*
104
10^
200
*Aeration units not meeting National Sanitation Foundation
standards give lesser performance.   Add-on units to septic
tanks would probably not meet the standards.

-------
3.2.2  Costs*
          Approximate capital and operation and maintenance
(Q&M) costs for the various on-site systems are given in
Exhibit 9.    Cost information was obtained from the literature,
septic tank contractors, and the Baxter County sanitarian.
The costs will be higher for installations where rock or other
problems are encountered, and also for add-on units because of
the more difficult and messy working conditions.   A concrete
septic tank was assumed to have a life equal to that of the
dwelling.  An average 20-year absorption-field life was assumed
for conventional septic tank systems, 30 years for dosing
systems, and 40 years for aeration and filtration systems.
Absorption field replacement costs were increased 50 percent
for add-on conditions.  The filtration system is based on two
filters each loaded at 5 gal/day/sq ft, with alternate loading
and resting periods.  Conventional .septic tank systems should
be pumped out at least every three years.   Aeration units were
assumed to double the pump-out interval to 6 years.   A dosing
pump was assumed to require one service call per year and
replacement in 10 years.
          O&M requirements generally become more important and
complex with system complexity.  If O&M are inadequate, the
benefits of added treatment may be lost.   Aeration units
should be inspected at least every two months for problems
such as bulking sludge (sludge that does not settle),
excessive sludge buildup, clogging of the aeration system, or
other system upset.  Aeration units are less stable than
septic tanks, and periodic upsets from surge flows or other
problems can cause substantial variation in effluent quality.
Maintenance for sand filter operation includes regular inspec-

* EPA can participate in individual systems for residences
  built since December 27, 1977 and occupied 51 percent of
  the time.
                            17

-------
                                        EXHIBIT 9

                                   ON-SITE SYSTEMS COSTS
                                                                                Aeration
Capital

  Tank

  Unit

  Drainfield

     Total
Annual O&M

  Pump-out

  Absorption field
   replacement

  Equipment
   maintenance

  Electricity

     Total


(l)Does not include land.
Septic
Tank
$300-400
-
300-850
$600-1250
$15
ild
23-64
-
-
$30-57
Dosing
System
$300-400
300-600
300-850
$900-1850
$15
15-43
50
4
$79-97
Filtration
System
$ 300-400
1500-2400
300-850
$2100-3650
$15
11-32
80-160
4
$107-200
Aeration Cluster
System System (:
$1300-2000 $10,000
300-850 5,600
$1600-2850 $15,600
per unit 520
Delivery cost 200-500
TOTAL $720-1020
$8 $100
11-32 $140
35 $175
60 $360
$111-124 $775
per unit   $26

-------
tions for effluent ponding, raking to a depth of 2-4 inches
after the several-month loading period and replacing the top 4
inches of sand every other rest period.
3.2.3     Cluster Systems
          Groups of commercial establishments and residences
might be served by cluster rather than individual on-site
disposal systems.  Cluster systems are eligible for construction
grants when the residences being served are occupied 51 percent of
the time and the residences were in existence on December 27, 1977.
The possibility of cluster systems serving the commercial and
residential areas where septic system problems have been most
common were evaluated.  A typical cluster system in Lakeview
serving about 30 units or 75 persons at 75-gal/cap/day will
require an approximately 7500-sq-ft absorption field based on
Arkansas Regulations for isolated commercial establishments.
Cost estimates for such a system using aeration are given in
Exhibit 9, but the costs for land, delivery, and regulation
must be added.  The land requirements are estimated at 3-4
acres, which will provide room for an alternate absorption
field and reasonable setbacks.  Delivery costs, including a
local collection system, are estimated to be $200-500 per
unit.  The costs for a typical one-third acre platted lot in
the Lakeview area is about $7,000 so that land for a 30-unit
cluster system in a residential area will cost a prohibitive
$63,000 to $84,000.  Land in unplatted areas is reportedly
about $2,000 an acre.
3.2.4  On-Site System Management
          The management alternatives address the question of
how on-site disposal systems can be controlled to promote the
goals of water pollution control and cost-effectiveness as
well as community desires.  The monthly unit-costs of on-site
systems were compared to the monthly charge for the proposed
sewer system.  (See Section 4.5.)  Including an estimated $340
                            18

-------
for hook-up, the sewer system will cost $13.00 per month.  In
the Lakeview area, it can reasonably be expected that existing
absorption fields will require 100 percent expansion after a
20-year use-period.  In many cases, additional property may be
needed.  Typical monthly costs for these eventualities and for
upgraded septic tank systems as well as conventional systems
are illustrated below.

                                             Monthly   Capital
                                              Cost      Cost
Conventional septic tank  - Capital          $ 8.50*   $1000
                          - Maintenance        1.25
                          - Total            $9.75
100% absorption field expansion              $ 3.75    $ 900
Added 1/6 acre land                          $29.75*   $3500
Upgraded septic tank system - Capital        $21.25*   $2500
                            - Maintenance     10.00
                            - Total          $31.25
* Capital costs at 8% interest over 20 years.

          Septic tank system costs will vary greatly with
individual circumstances.   In general, the comparison shows
the relatively low cost of conventional septic tank systems
where suitable.  Sunken capital costs of existing septic tank
systems can not be recovered, and are in addition to project
costs.  However, some of the sunken costs must be written off
in anticipation of the need for absorption field expansion or
replacement.  Where additional land and upgraded systems are
required, monthly costs are greatly increased over the charge
for the proposed project.   The charges with the project will
be reduced as customers are added.
          If 100 residents in Lakeview upgraded their on-site
systems, including 100% absorption field expansion with added
                            19

-------
land (assuming the land is available), the total capital
costs would be an estimated $690,000.   The Federal share (i.e.,    Rev'd*
75% of grant eligible items) would be about $255,000 and the
local share about $435,000.  The cost to residents for the
upgraded system would be about $46.00/month including operation,
maintenance, and interest.  EPA will fund only the most cost-
effective alternative having the least environmental impact;
however, the Town of Lakeview may wish to pursue on-site
system alternatives.   Four levels of management have been
identified, in order of increasing control.
          Level 1 will continue existing management practices.
These are minimum construction standards as required by Arkansas
Department of Health Regulations.  Responsibility for county-wide
enforcement rests with the County Sanitarian, although authority
may be delegated to municipalities and property-owner associations.
Percolation tests must be performed by a qualified agent
approved by the Department of Health.   Limited field inspections
are conducted.  The regulations are clearly not intended to
recommend or encourage conventional septic tank systems in
areas of concentrated population.  Except where nuisance
conditions arise, there is little control over on-site systems
already built and there are only vague options regarding
advanced systems.  A number of additional measures are needed
if on-site systems are to be upgraded significantly and problems
avoided in the Lakeview area.
          Level 2 will require upgrading all new systems to
provide better effluent quality and longer system-life.
Aerated tanks or sand filters will probably be required.
Added personnel will be needed by the responsible agency to
review plans, provide increased construction inspection, and
reinspect existing systems, especially advanced units.
 *  Revised  from Draft

                            20

-------
          At this level, on-site disposal will remain the
responsibility of the private citizen, but government regula-
tion will be increased.   This alternative will result in some
pollution control and public health benefits, but will not
address problems caused by existing systems.   Current trends
of land use and population density will not be directly affected.
          Level 3 will require upgrading or replacing existing
systems which experience problems or do not meet stringent
design and lot size-requirements.  All new installations will
comply with a minimum residential lot size of at least 0.5 and
preferably 0.75 acre, which will necessitate replatting parts
of existing developments.   Periodic reporting and inspection
of all systems to assure proper operation and maintenance will
be required.
          This option will not accept past shortcomings and is
basic for effectively reducing contamination and avoiding
health hazards.  It is not likely to be equitable,  however,
since the individual will  be financially responsible for
system upgrading and economic losses because of land-use
changes and limitations.   The resource, economic, and energy
costs for extensive use of advanced systems will  be high.
          Level 4 will further establish a central  management
agency for on-site systems, operating as a public utility.
Cluster systems can be provided where needed.   The  authority
can maintain information on soils,  water quality, and on-site
system conditions; establish standards for individual wells
(such as prohibition or casing depth); perform system maintenance;
require a performance bond from system owners to be forfeited
if there is improper operation and maintenance;  require water
conservation fixtures; and obtain grants or loans for cluster
systems or systems not meeting standards.   The agency will  be
supported by fees charged to those served, and some of the
work might be done by private firms under contract.
                            21

-------
          The benefits of this level of management are environ-
mental and health-protection approaching that of a central
system where conditions allow.  The disadvantages are the
concept is relatively untried, the costs will be substantial,
and implementation will be difficult.   The legal procedures
needed to establish such an agency are uncertain.  The Town of
Lakeview does not have the technical,  administrative, and
government resources as a foundation for such a program, and
it is doubtful that the Baxter County Health Department will
soon possess the resources or authority to upgrade its activi-
ties to provide such in-depth regulation of on-site systems in
Lakeview or other Baxter County areas.  Soil and geological
conditions will limit the effectiveness and protection provided
by such systems.
          The inability to uniformly implement these programs
will greatly diminish the potential environmental benefits.
Lakeview1s requirements will not cover unincorporated areas,
which will have to implement parallel  programs for comparable
protection.  Different levels of control in political sub-
divisions will change the expected development pattern since
areas with lower or less-costly controls will probably attract
more growth.  Enforcement will be difficult on the local level
because of intense political and economic pressures, and the
public may not favor certain government activities and authorities.
Thus, even if there is a concerted interest in maintaining
on-site systems, many features of Levels 3 and 4 will be
difficult or impossible to implement.
3.2.5  On-Site Disposal Summary
          Even with upgraded on-site disposal systems, in-
creased local ground water contamination from nitrate and
chloride will take place in general proportion to growth.
These constituents are not significantly removed by such
systems or soils.  Properly operated upgraded systems will
                            22

-------
lessen the occurrence of absorption-field failure and
associated health hazards, surface water contamination, and
nuisance and aesthetic problems.  Organic and bacterial
contamination of ground waters will also be reduced by
upgraded systems.
          Cluster systems are an alternative for isolated
developments in problem areas.  The use of cluster systems in
the Lakeview area will be limited by nitrate and chloride
contamination of ground water, and by land requirements to
avoid saturated soil conditions.  Also, providing such systems
for a static community is more economical and manageable than
for a community as Lakeview with its rapid growth and seasonal
tourist population.   As density of development increases, more
cluster systems will be needed in emerging problem areas, but
land availability will be reduced.   Cluster systems would best
be planned and installed in advance of much development to
assure land availability and avoid duplication of costs for
switching from individual systems.   This will  require a sub-
stantial long-term economic, land use,  and facilities commit-
ment which, except for land, will not be recovered if it were
decided to install a central sewer system in the future.
          A major difficulty in providing upgraded on-site
systems will be establishing proper management authority.   The
authority should have power to plan, design, construct, own,
operate, inspect, manage, and maintain all  wastewater systems
within its jurisdiction.   The authority may also require
extra-territorial jurisdiction through state statute,  case
law, or contract.  Other powers needed include those to assume
debt obligations and raise revenue through user charges,
special assessments, or taxes.  The authority  also ought to
have the power to set and enforce rules and regulations for
on-site systems and meet eligibility requirements for loans
and grants from the state and federal  governments.
                            23

-------
          Long-term reliance on upgraded on-site systems in
the Lakeview area has serious economic and environmental
drawbacks and will pose many management difficulties.  The      Rev'd*
Arkansas Department of Health 'indicates that it will be
unable to consider any alternate utilizing soil absorption
because of the severe limitations of the area's soils for
sewage absorption.

3.3  REGIONAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM OR CONNECTION TO BULL SHOALS
PLANT
          There is no existing or planned regional  wastewater
system in the Baxter-Marion County area.   A regional system
could be designed around Mountain Home (some 15 miles southeast
of Lakeview) or it might be designed to serve development
around Bull Shoals Lake.  The low population density of much
of the area and the rugged and rocky terrain, however, make
such large regional systems economically unfeasible for the
foreseeable future.
          A wastewater collection-and-treatment system for the
Town of Bull Shoals (three miles across the dam from Lakeview)
is nearing the construction stage.   The treatment plant and
discharge point will be on the White River about one mile
below the dam.  The most feasible means of connecting to the
Bull Shoals system is by crossing the White River below the
dam.  A break in the line or other failure resulting in a
raw sewage discharge to the White River would cause serious
pollution and pose a significant hazard to downstream water
supplies.  Therefore, any crossing would need to be designed
and constructed in a fail-safe manner to assure minimal risk.
Routing across the dam or lake would be more expensive because
of greater distances, the lake depth, difficult topography,

* Revised from Draft; see Arkansas Department of Health comments
  of October 13,  1978.

                            24

-------
and the problem of delivering wastewater collected in the Bull
Shoals State Park and Gaston Road areas below the dam.  The
estimated cost of connecting to the Bull Shoals system is
$272,000 ($342,000 less $70,000 for eliminating approximately      Rev'd*
4,100 ft of proposed 12-inch sewer line for delivering wastes
to the Lakeview plant).  (See Exhibit 10.)  However, the
$272,000 cost does not include the cost of expanding the
Bull Shoals treatment plant.  Expanding the Bull Shoals system
to handle the added 0.3 mgd design flow from Lakeview is
estimated to cost $320,000, compared to the $642,500 estimated
cost for the Lakeview treatment system alone.
          At a March, 1978 meeting, officials of both Bull
Shoals and Lakeview clearly indicated they were not interested
in interconnection of the two systems.   The Town of Bull
Shoals does not wish to delay their project or assume the
administrative burdens of interconnection.   Similarly,
Lakeview officials preferred an independently operated system.
In summary, connecting the Lakeview and the Town of Bull
Shoals systems does not appear to be feasible because of         Rev'd*
community desires, timing, and health concern about routing
raw wastewater across the White River.   Even without physical
interconnection, Lakeview and the Town of Bull  Shoals may find
it desirable to consolidate some operational functions and
personnel, and thus provide better and more efficient operational
services.
3.4  MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
     a.   Wastewater Reuse and Land Application
          Wastewater reuse is not a viable alternative in the
Lakeview area because of the abundant high quality water
resources available.  There are no industries or irrigable

* Revised from Draft

                            25

-------
                            EXHIBIT 10

                   PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
                               for'
      CONNECTING THE LAKEVIEW AND BULL SHOALS SEWER SYSTEMS*     Rev'd**
ITEM
   DESCRIPTION
                                      APPROX.
                                           UNIT
  QUANTITY    PRICE
              TOTAL
              COST
 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
Pump Station                   1 ea.         L.S.
8" ductile-iron force main  16,000 lin ft  $ 16.00
8" river crossing
Rock excavation
Bedding
Concrete encasement
Air relief valves
1,000 lin ft
  100 yd3
  200 yd3
   15 yd3
    2 ea
 40.00
 15.00
  9.00
 90.00
750.00
$ 40,000
 256,000
  40,000
   1,500
   1,800
   1,350
   1,500
       TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 	
                                                        $342,150
 * From Engineering Services, Inc.  (See letter of December 1,  1977,
   Appendix A, page 15).
** Revised from Draft; costs updated.

-------
lands to provide potential users and demand for reclaimed
effluent.
          Land application is a possible alternative to treat-
ment and discharge.  The primary benefit would be avoiding
surface water discharge to the White River or Bull Shoals
Lake.  The soil, bedrock, and geological conditions as discussed
in relation to septic tank systems also limit land application
alternatives in most of the area.   Soils with low infiltrative
and percolative capacity, fragipans, and insufficient depth to
rock are not well suited to such treatment systems.   Sink
holes, faults, and fractures which may provide short circuiting
to the groundwater and nearby water supply wells are also
undesirable.  The soils best suited for land application in
the Lakeview area appear to be the Healing series found in the
White River bottom.  Land application could reduce the effect
of direct discharge to the White River although as discussed
in Section 5.2.2, serious adverse effects are not expected.
The costs will depend upon required pretreatment and a pre-
liminary evaluation of land treatment feasibility and design.
At least primary and perhaps secondary treatment would be
necessary before land application.   The costs for land
application will include about 75 acres of land, transmission,
field preparation, storage, distribution and operation and
maintenance.  There may be small but appreciable environmental
benefits, however, a cost advantage over treatment-discharge
alternatives is unlikely.   Nearby recreation on the White
River and commitment of a large tract of a scarce land resource
are serious adverse factors.
     b.   Treatment and Discharge
          White River discharge limitations at Lakeview are 15
mg/1 total suspended solids, 5 mg/1 BOD, and 200 fecal  coliform
bacteria/100 ml.  The treatment and discharge system alternatives
are as follows:
                            26

-------
          1.    A contact stabilization activated-sludge plant
followed by disinfection and sand filtration.   This alternative
consists of bar screening, aeration, reaeration, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration with aerobic
sludge digestion followed by sand drying-bed dewatering and
burial.
          2.    A trickling-filter plant followed by disinfection
and sand filtration.   This alternative consists of bar screening,
grit removal, primary settling, trickling filtration, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration, with anaerobic
sludge digestion followed by sand drying-bed dewatering, and
burial.
          3.    An aerated lagoon followed by sedimentation,
disinfection, and sand filtration.   This alternative consists
of bar screening, aeration in a facultative lagoon, secondary
settling, disinfection, and sand filtration with sludge removal
and burial at infrequent 10-20 year intervals.
          Alternative 3 was selected as the most practicable
because of its proven ability to meet effluent standards,
simplicity, ease of operation, and capital and operating
costs.  There has been no major question concerning the adequacy
of Alternative 3 in either meeting discharge requirements or
representing a reasonable treatment-discharge, system although
the proposed system will be revised to include chemical precipi-
tation before filtration and dechlorination in response to
comments by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology.
     c.   Ozonation Alternative
          To avoid toxic effects of chlorine on aquatic life,
ozonation of wastewaters is an alternative solution to chlorine
disinfection and dechlorination (see Section 5.3.5).  While
ozone is finding acceptance in a few full-scale plants, there
                            27

-------
is a paucity of toxicity data for ozonated effluent at this
time.  Actual operational waste-treatment conditions in Michigan
indicate ozonated effluent had no significant effect on fathead
minnow reproduction, growth, or survival.  Nebel et a\_ (1973)
reported no mortality of bass, perch, minnows, and goldfish
exposed to undiluted ozonated effluent during a 6-week pilot-
plant study at a Kentucky treatment plant.  These same species
did not survive in nondisinfected secondary effluent.   Ozonation
is a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
     d.   Site Alternatives
          Two site alternatives have been identified - the
proposed site on the White River, and an alternative site on
Bull Shoals Lake near the western boundary of Lakeview, (see
Exhibit 12 in Section 4).  The Bull Shoals Lake site was
rejected because of the need for added nutrient-removal treatment
(based upon informal discussion with the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology), its proximity to the heavily
used Lakeview Recreation Area, discharge to important contact-
recreation waters, and nearby residential areas.   The White
River site also has the advantage of potentially serving the
Bull Shoals State Park and Gaston Road areas below the dam
without costly pumping to the lake site.   Through coordination
with the Arkansas Archeological Survey, there will be no
adverse archeological impact from the project.
          Nutrient removal requirements are decided on a
case-by-case basis; however, the general  policy of the Arkansas
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology is to require
nutrient removal for discharge to lakes because of concern for
nutrient enrichment.  Bull Shoals Lake followed a charac-
teristic path of very high fertility and associated fish
productivity the first few years after impoundment followed by
                            28

-------
a steady decline and then stabilization.  Fish productivity
will continue to fluctuate within a narrower range depending
on the varying abundance of nutrients and plankton.  Bull
Shoals Lake has been characterized as mesotrophic, a condition
between eutrophic (nutrient enriched and high in productivity)
and oligotrophic (very low in nutrients).  The lake approaches
oligotrophic conditions and is known for its clear waters, an
indication of low nutrient-enrichment.   The nutrients supplied
by discharge to Bull Shoals Lake would be beneficial for local
fish productivity by providing added plankton, which is food
for shad and bass fingerlings.  Because of the local nature of
the discharge and great dilution, however, the overall effects
on the Bull Shoals fisheries biota will probably be negligible.
          While nutrient removal from any Lakeview area discharges
to Bull Shoals Lake may not be critical, for long-term protection
of the high-quality waters and in view of increasing lakeshore
development, nutrient removal appears to be a sound policy.
The other drawbacks to the lake site are also valid and important
and, on balance, the White River discharge is preferable.
     e.   Service Area Alternatives
          An important consideration in the project's economic
feasibility and environmental impact is whether proposed
service areas beyond the Lakeview corporate limits will
participate.  Decisions involving Bull  Shoals State Park, the
Corps of Engineers (COE) Lakeview Recreation Area, and the
developments of Edgewood Bay and Leisure Hills will require
project evaluation in terms of individual needs and circumstances.
          A small package sewage treatment plant with discharge
to the White River serves Bull Shoals State Park.   Large
fluctuations in flows have resulted in operational difficulties
and odor problems.  The plant is designed for easy relocation
if the park is connected to the Lakeview system.   The Arkansas
Department of Parks and Tourism has indicated it is usually
                            29

-------
advantageous to tie their state parks into a local wastewater
system, however, further study and cost information from the
Town of Lakeview will be needed before a firm commitment is
given.
          The sanitary facilities at the COE Lakeview Recreation
Area consist of four vault-toilet restrooms, a sanitary trailer
dump-station, and a change shelter with six showers.    Two
more restrooms and converting a vault restroom to water-carriage
with showers are planned.   The estimated total  sewage flow
from the existing facilities is 16,000 gpd (if all are water-
carriage), with an additional 7,000 gpd for the two planned
restrooms.  The COE does not consider the current practice of
transporting waste from the Lakeview Recreation Area to the
Norfork lagoon system to be an acceptable long-term arrangement.
Possible alternatives include providing a central treatment
system for the park, or connecting to a regional  or local
sewage treatment system.   Under current COE policy, new con-
struction of recreation facilities at existing  projects is by
cost-sharing with a non-Federal public entity which will
assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities.
User-fee funds may be used to convert vault restrooms to
waterborne restrooms and to provide for showers.   A decision
on COE participation will  be based on cost and  priority funding
needs.   One option for COE participation is the payment of a       Rev'd
reasonable part of the first cost of the new plant but not include
a monthly user-fee payment.   Another option is  that the COE
could participate as a customer and pay a monthly user fee.
          Based on membership vote,  the Leisure Hills Homeowners
Association previously indicated interest in advancing a
wastewater disposal system for the area.   The Edgewood Bay
Association expressed its  cooperation to secure project approval

* Revised from Draft; see  U.S.  Department of Army comments  of
  August 4, 1978.                                               ;

                            30

-------
by letter from its officers; the validity of this letter was
contended, however, because the Association members did not
authorize or vote on the decision.   While there has been no
further commitment from these agencies or groups, positive
interest and need is sufficient to plan service to these
areas.   Commitments should be obtained early in the planning
process, as further cost and other information is made available.
The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00 to       *Rev'd
$15.14 if the State Park and COE Recreation Area are not
included.

3.5  ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE TO EPA
          The alternatives available to the EPA are issuing
the grant or denying the grant.
          Issuing the grant for the proposed project will
result in eliminating increasing public health hazards, water
quality degradation and inconvenience (problems with failure,
absorption field expansion, and maintenance) from septic tank
systems in the project area.  Substantial economic, material,
manpower, and energy resources will be committed to the project,
representing (for all practicable purposes), an irreversible
commitment to a sewage collection-and-treatment system for the
Lakeview area.  The short-term economic benefits will  consist
of construction employment opportunities and secondary economic
stimulation; however, much of the effect will be felt outside
the Lakeview area.  The adverse short-term effects include
noise, dust, and traffic disruption because of construction,
but these will be controlled within tolerable limits.    With
reasonable precautions, direct effects on aesthetics and
the biological environment including fish, birds, vegetation,

* Revised from Draft
                            31

-------
and terrestrial species will also be minor.  The project's
secondary effects on growth and development will not be great,
within the project design period, but the ultimate rate of
development and density will be altered because of the
increased value and the accelerated development of unplatted
areas and the avoidance of future sanitary and environmental
growth-constraints from septic tank systems.  The project cost
as reflected by an estimated average monthly cost of $13,00
will not be excessive compared to similar collection and
treatment systems.
          To avoid adverse effect on archeological  resources,
an addendum to the Facility Plan will require shifting the
treatment plant site so the eastern boundary coincides with
test pit XU3.  Notifying the Arkansas Archaeological Survey of
construction of the lines in the valley will also be required.
          In general, EPA can issue a grant to fund any of the
feasible alternatives as evaluated in the EIS, including
septic tanks, and a Step 1 Facility Plan Ammendment could
propose another plan if cost-effective.
          Grant denial will result in the "no-action" alterna-
tive with continued adverse environmental impact from groundwater
contamination and incidence of unsanitary conditions.  Project
related environmental impacts and commitment of public resources
for wastewater management will be avoided or deferred, but
private resources will be needed to install, maintain, repair,
and upgrade the many septic tank systems in the area.
                            32

-------
                    No Action
                                 EXHIBIT  10-A
                      COMPARATIVE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVES

                     	Proposed  Project	
                                     Upgraded On-Site Systems
Economics      $5.00/mo/unit for
                 maintenance and field
                 replacement
               $8.50/mo capital  cost for
                 future systems*
                            Total  Cost  -  $3,227,000
                            EPA         -  $2,324,000
                            Local       -  $  903,000
                            Unit Charge  $13.00/mo**
                              Individual-approx.  $30/mo capital
                                and O&M plus any added land costs*;
                              Cluster systems-approx.  $10/mo/unit
                                capital and O&M plus land costs*
Community
Effects and
Growth
No community disruption
  from construction
Continued growth to
  estimated 3000 population
  by year 1995
Community disruption during
  construction
Same growth to 3000 by 1995
  with increased development
  and density beyond 1995
Individual or localized disruption
  from construction
Growth same as "no action" but
  without land committed to waste
  disposal
Water Quality
     and
Public Health
Increasing ground and
  surface water
  contamination and
  public health risk
Prevent increasing water
  quality degradation and
  septic system failures
Will meet stream standards
Lesser water quality degradation
  and health risk than "no action"
  but satisfactory sites are limited.
Biology
No significant
  construction and
  operation impacts
Causes construction and
  operation impacts
Minor localized construction
  impacts
Archeology
No effects
No effects as amended
No effects
 * EPA may participate in some cases thus reducing owner cost.
** The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00 to $15.14 if the State Park and COE
   Recreational Area are not included.

-------

-------
           4.  DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

          Based on the analysis completed (i.e., results of water
quality and septic systems survey in the Lakeview area; environmental
impacts analysis; review and comment on the Draft EIS; public hearing
on the Draft EIS; and comments from interested individuals) and docu-
mented in the Final EIS, EPA, Region 6, proposes to award Step 2 and 3
grants for the project as described in this section.
4.1  TREATMENT SYSTEM
          The proposed treatment plant is designed to serve
3,000 persons at 100 gallons per-capita per day (gpcd) for an
average wastewater flow of 300,000 gallons per day (gpd) in
the 1995 design year.   The effluent limitations are 5 mg/1
BOD, 15 mg/1 suspended solids and 200 fecal coliform/100 ml,
with discharge to the White River about 5 miles below Bull
Shoals Dam.   The present (1977) wastewater flow is estimated
at 135,000 gpd, based upon a population equivalent of 1,350
persons at 100 gpcd.   The 100-gpcd figure reasonably reflects
water use of about 75 gpcd for the Lakeview-Midway and Edge-
wood Bay Water associations plus a transient population incre-
ment of 120 gpd (2 persons @ 60 gpcd) per motel unit.
          Treatment plant unit processes with costs as shown
schematically in Exhibit 11 are:                                    Rev'd*
     Flow measurement
     Bar screen
     Aerated lagoons - 4 units with 48-day
     combined detention time                            -  $300,000
     Pump station                                       -    30,000
     Secondary settling tank - 3 hours detention time   -    75,000
     Disinfection - 15 minute contact time              -    40,000
     Rapid sand filtration - 2 units at 5 gpm/ft        -   125,000
     Also:   Equipment building                          -    65,000
            Fencing                                     -     7,500
                                                  Total    $642,500
* Revised from Draft;  updated cost estimates.
                            33                                 L

-------
 r
I  !
!  JL
            INFLUENT
             BAR  SCREEN
           AERATED  LAGOON NO. I
AERATED  LAGOON  NO. 4
        CHEMICAL

       PRECIPITATION
                     SAND


                    FILTER
!    SETTLED SLUDGE
i   | - - . _,rf _ _ '^	. _,'


I	f Ir
                                   AERATED  LAGOON  NO. 2
                                                                i
                                              AERATED  LAGOON  NO. 3
                                CHLORINE
DECHLOR1NATJON
                                                   CHLORINE


                                                 CONTACT TANK
                                                  ':   EFFLUENT  TO



                                                      WHITE  RIVER
                                FILTER  BACKWASH
             SCHEMATIC  OF  TREATMENT  FACILITY


                        LAKE VIEW,  ARKANSAS
rACli±! PLAN WITH UPDATE
                                                        EZBBiT 51

-------
          The disinfection and filtration units will be sized
to handle an expected peak flow of 1,250 gpm.  Dechlorination
or alternate means of disinfection and chemical precipitation
before filtration will be required by the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology.   The treatment plant will be
equipped with an auxiliary power generator to be used during
periods of extended power failure.  The total estimated cost
for the treatment plant is $642,500, including dechlorination
or alternate means of disinfection.

4.2  COLLECTION SYSTEM
          The collection system will serve the Town of
Lakeview, Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills, Bull Shoals State Park,
the Lakeview Recreation Area and the Gaston Road area.   It
will consist of about 68,000 Tin ft of 8-inch, and 22,000 Tin
ft of 10-inch gravity collectors and interceptor sewers.   Also
included in the collection system are four sewage pump stations
and approximately 11,300 ft of force main.   The main line to
the treatment plant will consist of approximately 16,500 Tin
ft of 12-inch gravity sewer.   Exhibit 12 is a layout map of
the proposed collection system.   The collection system costs
are estimated at $1,934,000.

4.3  LAND AND OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS
          The treatment plant will require about eight acres
of land, and four very small  parcels of land probably totaling
less than one-fourth acre will also be required for the pump
stations.
          One full-time and one part-time person will  be
required to properly operate and maintain the proposed system.
The annual operation and maintenance cost is estimated at
$20,000 for the treatment plant and $20,000 for the collection
system.
                            34

-------
              t'f  S^^''^~-^')^VWi^'^y'/

       x^tWWW^^' •"-
           '\^^^j^^^^^   $%K^
;,  / N"  *^><. >V  . ""X
 /'       X \£
f;           * »?»»•» >i
                                                                                                 ^^.           "x
                                                                                                                                              fl" FORCE MAIN



                                                                                                                                         	  BOUNDARY - BULL SHC*LS ST»TE WWK



                                                                                                                                              LAKEV1EW CORPORATE LIMIT



                                                                                                                                       •• • •	  MAXIMUM LAKE ELEVATION
                                                                                                                      SOURCE:  LAKEVIEW FACILITY PLAN

-------
m
x
I
CO
   t\>
   o
OO
                                                      -1VI3mm<03 OMIHA  C-3
                                                 1VI3M1HH03 JkDVaNOaif  l-D
                                                   1VIDV3HN03 AMVNIIM  1-3
                                        IVUNIOKIII AllMVd UTOH • 11(Nlt  X-H
                                               IVUNJOIfW X1INW 3T»Nlt  I-U
                                               IHV »3sn lyiiMjaisan NON
                                                                1NV3VA  A
                                                           3HOH 3THOM   A
                                                SONm3M30  A1IHVJ lllftN  fli
                                                                  OKI
M31A3XV1 JO  NM01
                                                                             Di«ONOD3 CVSNV
                                                                             3AltN3H3dd«00
                                                                                   OOtr OOZ  0 OOZ
                                                                                    JJU Nl  31V3S

-------

-------
4.4  CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
          An estimated six months will be required to complete
detailed plans and specifications from the time of the Step-2
grant.   A four-month period is then estimated for administrative
and bidding procedures followed by a one-year construction
period.

4.5  COSTS                                                         Rev'd*
          Based upon comparing the cost information for Lakeview
with actual bid prices for the Cotter-Gassville system, Bull Shoals
system, and other available cost information (EPA, 1978; Means,
1978),  the estimated costs are shown below.   Cost increases can
be expected because of inflation.  Chemical  precipitation costs
are included.
     Total estimated construction cost  $2,577,000
     Contingency                           250,000
     Engineering                           257,000
     Legal and administrative               15,000
     Land and right-of-way                  30,000
     Interest during construction           98,000
                    Total Project Cost  $3,227,000
          An estimated annual income will  be required to
finance Lakeview1s share of the project cost (see Exhibit 13).
The unit count is based on the number of residential  and
commercial structures in 1978 and those anticipated for 1995
for the town,  plus the areas outside the town limits  to be
served by the project (including an equivalent for Bull  Shoals
State Park and the Lakeview Recreation Area).
          The average per-unit cost for 1978 will  be  approxi-
mately $13.00 per month or $156.00 per year.   As connections
  Revised from Draft; cost updated.
                            35

-------
                          EXHIBIT 13                             Rev'd(1)
             FINANCING AND COST OF PROPOSED SYSTEM

Total initial cost                                  $3,227,000
Less land cost (ineligible)                             30,000
Less interest during construction (ineligible)          98,000

Grant base                                          $3,099,000
Maximum EPA grant - 75%                              2,324,000

Minimum City portion                                $  775,000
Plus land cost                                          30,000
Plus interest during construction                       98,000

          TOTAL CITY PORTION                        $  903,000

FHA  Loan for 40 years @ 5% interest
  $903,000 @ 38 years - i = 5% (16.868)                 53,500
  (2 years deferred payments)
  Plus 10% coverage                                      5,350
          ANNUAL PAYMENT                            $   58,850

Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost
  Operation and maintenance (ESI estimate)          $   40,000
  Sinking fund cost                                     10,000
                                                    $   50,000

          ANNUAL INCOME REQUIRED                    $  108,850

-------
                    EXHIBIT 13 (Continued)
Per-Unit Cost:
     1978:
                    $108,850/yr
               (12 mo/yr) (784 units)
Project
 Costs
Total
Costs
                                                             (2)
                                         = $n.57/mo    $13.00/mo
                      (3)
     1995:
                    $108,850/yr
               (12 mo/yr)(1618 units)
                                         =  $5.61/mo    $ 7.03/mo
(1)
    Revised from Draft;  updated costs.
(2)
    Includes estimated cost of $340 for the private  sewer
    line hook-up and filling existing septic tanks with  gravel.

    The estimated monthly charge would increase from $13.00  to
    $15.14 if the State Park and COE Recreational Area are
    not included.

-------
are added to the system the per-unit cost will decrease to
$7.03 per month by 1995.   Based upon volume of flow, the
average unit cost of $13.00 per month corresponds to waste-
water volume of approximately 6,000 gal.
                            36

-------
           5.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ERA'S PROPOSED ACTION

          The following environmental impacts are expected as
a result of awarding the Step 2 and 3 grants to the Town of
Lakeview for the continued design and construction of the
proposed project as described in Section 4.

5.1  GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY
5.1.1  Effects of Construction on Geology, Soils, and Topography
          Constructing the project will have minor short-term
adverse impacts on soils.   Some topsoil loss will occur once
the vegetation is removed and excavation takes place.   While
the topsoil is quite thin in the Lakeview area,  the residual
rock (chert) content of the soil will help prevent some erosion.
Mitigative measures during construction will include limiting
the length of open trenches to 500 ft and installing the pipe
within as short a time period as possible.  In addition, land-
scaping will closely follow the completed construction with
leveling and seeding to protect the areas from additional
erosion and soil loss.
          The treatment plant site is underlain,  to a  small      Rev'd*
extent, by Healing silt loam, which is defined as a prime
agricultural soil.   Soil disturbance and the change in land
use at the plant site will  have a small  adverse  impact on
this prime agricultural land resource.   Proposed  residential
development may also affect land use in the area  adjacent
to the White River as discussed in Section 5.4.3.2d.
          Construction activities will  alter the  topography of
areas required for the aerated lagoons and treatment facilities
at the proposed plant site.   Collection system excavation  will
cause a minor short-term impact, but after backfill  and land-
scaping, the original appearance should be attained.

* Revised from Draft; see  U.S.  Department of Agriculture
  comments of July 20,  1978.
                            37

-------
          There are no known mineral or petroleum resources
(e.g., oil, natural gas,  coal, uranium, sulfur, or sand and
gravel) to be impacted by construction of the proposed project.
Blasted rock will be disposed of in an approved fill area or
other unobjectionable location.
5.1.2  Effects of Operation on Geology, Soils, and Topography
          Implementation of the proposed project will result
in the abandonment of existing on-site systems which will
result in an indirect loss of soil nutrients and moisture in
the immediate absorption-field areas of septic tanks.  To
maintain lawn appearances, additional watering and fertiliza-
tion may be necessary.
5.2  HYDROLOGY
5.2.1  Surface Water Setting
          Bull Shoals Lake and the White River are the important
and inseparable surface-water features of the Lakeview area.
Lakeview is situated on a northeast-southwest-oriented ridge
with surface drainage to the northwest into Bull Shoals Lake
or to the southeast into Bruce Creek.  All drainage eventually
reaches the White River.   The river streamflow in the Lakeview
area is almost completely controlled by the operation of Bull
Shoals Dam.  Power is normally generated only during peak-demand
periods, which causes large flow-fluctuations over any selected
time interval.  The average flow for the past 48 years has
been 6,093 cfs at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauging
system on the White River near Flippin, 11.5 miles downstream
from the dam.
          The environmental effects wastewater discharges have
on receiving streams are most critical during low-flow periods.
The house generating-unit, which provides power for the dam
and powerhouse, runs almost constantly and releases about 50
cfs.   Leakage from the lake to several springs downstream from
the dam provides another 60 cfs for a total of 110 cfs that
                            38

-------
can be considered a constant minimum-flow (Army Corps of
Engineers, 1973).  The Corps of Engineers cooperates in maintain-
ing the cold-water trout fishery during the summer, using the
following guidelines for minimum average daily releases depending
upon maximum air temperature (Little Rock District, Corps of
Engineers):
          90°F or below       250 cfs
          91- 95°             375 cfs
          96-104°             500 cfs
          105° or greater     750 cfs
Instantaneous releases may be lower.  The 1- and 7-day low
flows at a recurrence interval of 10 years are 158 and 324
cfs, respectively, for the period 1953 to 1970 (USGS, 1975) at
the Flippin gauging station.   There is little dry-weather
tributary flow between the dam and gauging station.
          The Arkansas Water Quality Standards classify the
White River from Bull Shoals Dam to Lock and Dam No.  3 as Use
Class A and as a trout fishery.   Bull  Shoals Lake is  Use Class
AA and a warmwater fishery.
          Use Class A is "Suitable for primary contact-recreation,
propagating desirable species of fish,  wildlife,  and  other
aquatic life; a raw-water source for public  water supplies;
and other compatible uses."   Use Class AA is the same as Class
A but also "of extraordinary recreational  and aesthetic value."
          The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control  and
Ecology's water-quality monitoring system includes a  station,
WHI 47, just below Bull  Shoals Dam on the White River (See
Exhibit 14).   This station has been regularly monitored for a
wide range of physical,  chemical,  and bacterial parameters
since April,  1974.   The Corps of Engineers also conducts a
monitoring program in the Lake area with stations just below
and just above the dam (See  Exhibit 15).   The U.S.  Geological
Survey monitors several  physical  and chemical  parameters on
the lake above the dam.

                            39

-------
STORFT  DATF 77/10/15
                                                            EXHIBIT  14
/TYPA/HMBNT/STHFAM
                                                          WATER QUALITY
                                             WHITE RIVER  BELOW BULL SHOALS DAM
PAPAMFTFR
onoio
000?0
00061
00070
00076
00080
00095
00145
00300
00301
0031 0
00340
00400
00410
00440
00445
oo=iOO
00515
00530
00610
0061 5
0 O 6 ? 0
noftto
nom65
00900
0091 0
0091 5
0091 ft
000?=,
009?7
On9?9
00917
00940
00945
0100?
o i o ? r
0)014
0)04?
01045
yATFR
AIR
STPFAM
TIMS
TUKR
COI OR
CNDUCTVY
IMVALin
no
no
ROD
coo
PH
T Al.K
HTO3 ION
C03 ION
RFSTOUF
HFSIOUF
RFSinuF
NH3-N
NO2-N
NO1-M
NO2H.NO3
PNO5-TOT
TOT HAwn
CA|. CIIIM
CALCIUM
C^L CIUM
MKMSIUM
MRhJ^ I DM
SOOIIIH
PTSSII.IM
CHLOHIOF
SIM FAT^
AWSfNlC
C AOMIII"
CKI'O'THM
roppF.9
Tl'OM
TFMP
TF"P
FLOW,
JKSN
TRHIOMTR
PT-CO
AT 25C
PAR

SATIIK
5 OAY
HI LFVFL

CAC03
HC03
C03
TOTAL
niss-105
TOT NFLT
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
M-TOTAL

CAT03
CAC01
CA.ntss
CA-TOT
MR.OTSS
MR, TOT
NA , TOT
K.TOT
Cl
S04-TOT
AS, TOT
CO. TOT
C(', TOT
TU.TOT
FF .TOT
CFNT
CFNT
1NST-CFS
JTII
HACK FTU
UNITS
MICROMHO
NUMHFR
Mfi/L
PFBCFMT
MR/L
Mfi/L
SU
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
0 MR/I
Mfi/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MG/L P
MR/I.
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
MR/L
Mfi/L
MR/I
MR/L
MR/L
Ufi/l
Ufi/l
Ufi/L
Ufi/l.
Hfi/l
NUMflFR
41
36
5
41
41
1
41
40
40
1
41
1
1?
9
35
42
39
5
5
41)
3
40
1 ?
1?
1 1
1
1?
1
1?
11
3?
31
?1
?3
?1
?1
?1
MFAN
11.0750
12407.7
2.8222?
1.42000
3.90244
?41 .634
27.0000
8.69R9B
7B.4750
1.14574
4.50000
7.93997
122.000
145.917
.000000
146.486
14?. 6) 9
4.33333
.07HOOO
.054000
.420749
.1HOOOO
.01 6250
126. H33
B7.5000
34.6909
43.0000
9. 15«33
1 1 .0000
?.??500
1 . 354S4
5.3906?
4. 1 9355
3.71443
2.9565?
.B57143
4.57143
38.5238
VARIANCE
12.8405
17.0881
.657001
1 1 .8903
?55.B?5

6.447BO
420. 309
.749449

.033545

21.5454
.000000
83.51?9
96.20BB
16.0175
.002270
.00?030
. ] 04H64
.000700
.000424
2B9.795
153.545
26.2531

1.37724

.30933?
.312727
1 .5) 1H4
3.161?9
16.113?
13.??53
1 .92857
">7.5571
1 2?7.56
STAN OEV COEF VAR
3.58337 .323555
9.07303 .536015
7741 .43 .623922
4.13377
.810556
3.44B22
15.9945

2.53925
20.K014
.B65707

-183153

4.64171
.000000
9.13R54
9.ROR61
4.00219
.047645
.045056
-3?3«27
.0?645H
.020592
17.0234
12.3913
5.12378

1 .81773

.5S6176
.559??0
1 -??957
1 .77800
4.01412
3.63666
1 .3H873
6.12839
15.0366
1 .46472
.570814
.883608
.066193

.291902
.?6\24fl
.64329?

.023067

.031H11

.062385
.068775
.923583
.61 082.8
.834362
.769645
. 146989
1 .26721
.1 34? 18
.141615
.147698

.196373

.249967
.412847
.??8094
.4?3985
1 .08068
! .21005
1 .6?01B
1 .3405B
.909479
STAND ER MAXIMUM MINIMUM
.566581 18. 0000 .000000
1.416Q7 31.0000 1.00000
151B.22 24900.0 50.0000
.6BB96?
.362492
.538522
2.49793

.396565
3.24156
.1368BO

.028604

1.33994
.000000
1 .54469
1.51350
.640864
.021307
.020149
.051?02
.015?76
.003256
4.914??
3.^,7707
1 .54488

.530506

. 160554
.16861 1
.217360
.319339
.H75953
. 7SB296
.303046
1.3371?
7.64561
25.0000
2.40000
10.0000
277.000
27.0000
12.3000
113.000
4.10000
4.50000
fl. 27000
122.000
151.000
.000000
167.000
163.000
18.0000
.130000
.100000
1.86000
.200000
.100000
1 72.000
1 18.000
47.0000
43.0000
1 3.0000
1 1 .0000
3.20000
3.00000
10.5000
8.00000
21.0000
14.0000
3.00000
21 .0000
1 34.000
.600000
.600000
.030000
207.000
27.0000
3.10000
30.0000
.150000
4.50000
7.38000
12.2.000
137.000
.000000
126.000
119.000
.000000
.010000
.010000
.1 00000
.150000
.010000
1 14.000
76.0000
30.0000
43.0000
7.00000
11.0000
1.10000
1 .00000
4.00000
l.noooo
.003000
.000000
.000000
.000000
.000000
                                                                                                            BEG DATE END DATE
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/Ofl/0'»
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/08/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10 76/09/21
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/03/?l
                                                                                                            77/04/20 77/OB/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OR/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OB/09
                                                                                                            77/06/15 77/I66/1S
                                                                                                            74/04/J.Q.-7T/OB/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/OB/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OR./09
                                                                                                            76/07/20 76/07/20
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OB/09
                                                                                                            77/06/15 77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/03/21
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/03/21
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/01/17
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OB/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/OR/09
                                                                                                            77/03/21 77/07/lfl.
                                                                                                            77/03/21  77/07/18
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/07/lfl
                                                                                                            77/05/18 77/07/18
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/07/18
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/03/21
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/03/21
                                                                                                            74/04/10 77/03/21
                                                                                                            77/06/15  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/03/21
                                                                                                            77/06/15  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/08/09
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/07/18
                                                                                                            74/04/10  76/10/13
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/06/15
                                                                                                            74/04/10  77/03/21

-------
STORFT DATF 77/10/15
/TYPA/AMRMT/STRFAM
PAPAMFTFR
ni 051
o] o^
ni 09?
3150]
T 1 ft ] A
;u * 7 Q
"VI 1M
?OT
OIFI DRIN
ENDnSlll N
FNriRlN
TOXPHFNF
HCHl.P
HCHLW-F.P
MTHXVCI.R
MPflRATHN
LIMOANF
INFPT
ifMVAi rn
MFRCUWY
PHtTOT
MN
7N.TOT
MFIMFMHO
MFM-FCBH
MF M-ENT
(ALCHLP)
WHL S«4PL
WHL SAMP
WHL WPL
WHl. <;MP|.
WHL SMPL
WHL SUPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPI
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
WHL SMPL
SHFI LS
PAR
HG. TOTAL
UG/L
UG/L
UR/L
/100ML
/100ML
/100ML
ur,/L
ur,/L
Ufi/l
tjfi/l
UG/I
IIR/L
UR/L
UC,/L
Ufi/L
Ufi/l.
UR/L
UG/L
UR/L
UR/L
UG/L
PNATF/ML
NtlMHFfy
UG/L
             EXHIBIT 14       (Cont.)




           WATER QUALITY




WHITE RIVER  BELOW BULL SHOALS DAM
FH
22
21
35
39
20
3
R
1
5
8
10
R
5
10
10
5
5
5
10
10
1
1
1
MFAN
7.50000
SZ.7273
2". 00000
10?. 543
71.410?
44. 1500
.003333
.001000
.001 000
.001400
.0010(10
.002100
.001000
.001000
.002000
.OR4600
.001000
.001000
.004600
,oos«oo
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
VARIANCE STAN DEV COEF VAR
"8.H333 9.4?514 l.?5669
3378.40
13.4000
35197.2
Q207P.6
5473.71
.000001
.??OF-1 1

.KOOF-06
,??W-\ I
.000003
.220F-1 1
.272F-1 1
.000002
.000895
.272E-1 1
o?72F-l 1
.000006
.000006
,?93F-1 1



58.1240
3.66060
187.609
303.445
73.9H45
.001155
.000001

.000894
.000001
.001595
.000001
.000002
.001414
.029912
.000002
.000002
.002510
.002530
.000002



1.10235
1.83030
1.82957
4.2*931
1.67575
.346410
.001486

.638880
.001486
.759588
.001486
.00165?
.707107
.353568
.00165?
.00165?
.545649
.436174
.001712



STAND FR MAXIMUM
2.00945 35.0000
12.3921
.798808
31.7117
4H.5900
16.5434
.000667
.525F-06

.000400
.525F-06
vJMM|£04
. ?5*1V*?>!iS
.73PF-06
.000447
.009459
.73RF-06
,738F-"6
.00112?
.000800
.541E-06



237.000
16.0000
900.000
1880.00
212.000
.004000
.001000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.006000
.001000
.001000
.005000
.110000
.001000
.001000
.009000
.010000
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
MINIMUM
.000000
.000000
.000000
4.00000
4.00000
4.00000
.002000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.001000
.050000
.001000
.001000
.003000
.001000
.001000
.420000
38.0000
.500000
BEG DATE
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/04/10
74/10/21
75/11/18
74/07/31
77/07/18
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/07/31
74/12/16
75/03/31
76/10/13
FND DATE
77/06/15
77/06/15
77/06/15
77/08/09
77/08/09
77/01/17
77/06/15.
77/06/15
77/07/18
75/03/31
77/06/15
77/08/09
77/06/15
75/03/31
77/08/09
77/08/09
75/03/31
75/03/31
75/03/31
77/08/09
77/08/09
74/12/16
75/03/31
76/10/13

-------
                        EXHIIIIT 15
                        WATKR QUALITY
             (CORPS OK ENOTNKKRS MONETORIMG)
             Period from July 1973-Au^uat 1977

I'ARA'/K'L'Eil

WATER TEMP.(°F.)
PH
SP. CONDUCTANCE
(UMHOS)
SECCHI DISK (FT)
DISS. OZ (m(j/l)
COLOH
TURBIW (jtu)
ALKALINITY (ma/1)
TOT. HARDNESS
(mg/1)
Ca HARDNESS (rog/1)
NO, + NO, (mg/1)
NH£ (rag A)
KJELDAHL N (mg/1)
TOTAL PO, (mg/1)
ORTHO PO, (ma/1)
CHLORIDE (mg/1)
SULFATE (mg/1)
ALUMINUM (mg/1)
ARSENIC (mg/1)
CHROMIUM (mg/1)
.COPPER (mg/1)
F.EAD (mg/1)
MANGANESE (mg/1)
MERCUHY (u»/l)
NICKEL (mg/1)
POTASSIUM (mg/1)
ZINC (mg/1)
IRON (mu/1)
BOD (rat/I)
FECAL COLIFORM/lOOml
WITO
500 FT.
MEAN
5-1
V.3
183

_
7.9
4
3
128
141

92
0.27
0.02
0.17
0.01
0.01
4.7
6.8
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.10
<0.10
0.0/t
O.OP
<0.05
1.5
0.10
0.05
0.8
0.6
RIVER
BELOW DAM
RANGE
46-65
6.2-8.2
< 50-230

_
5.0-12.4
0-20
0-10
116-160
120-196

72-116
0.17-0.35
0.00-0.04
0.02-0.39
0.00-0.02
0.00-0.02
2.8-7.0
5.3-8.7
0.04-0.12
0.00-0. 01
0.00-0.01
0.01-0.21
<0./0
0.00-0.12
0.00-0.18
<0.05
1.2-1.9
0.03-0.22
0.01-0.13
0.2-1.4
0-2
BULL SKOALS LAXE
NEAR UAM -
MEAN
68
7.2
224

24
9.6
4
?.
119
124

80
0.09
0.03
0.25
0.04
0.02
3.8
6.7
0.0'..
O.CO
0.00
0.13
<0.1
0.03
0.0
<0.07
1.4
0.14
0.03
1.1
2
25 J-r. DEPTH
RAJ!'>:
53-32
6.3-7.9
190-265

18-35
6.7-12.8
0,20
0-5
102-145
114-132

65-105
0.01-0.25
O.OO-0.07
0.13-OJ5
0.01-0.11
0.01-0.04
3.3-5.1
5.1-8.1
0.04-0. OT
0. 0-3-0. OL
0.00-0.02
0.01-0.27
< 0.1-0. 2
0.00-0.03
0.0-0.0
<0. 05-0. 05
1.3-1.6
o.Oi-o.x;
0.00-0.07
0.6-2.2
0-7
                                                          BULL SHOALS LAXE
                                                        NEAU DAM  -  100 FT.  DF.PTil
MEAN
56
. 6.8
245
23
5.7
5
3
126
131
88
0.25
. 0.02
0.24
0.01
0.005
3.4
6.5
O.OH
0.01
- 0.00
0.09-
. 0.2
0.03
0.0
<0.05
1.7
0.13
0.05
1.1
RANGE
46-66
6.5-7.S
150-440
18-35
0.0-10.5
0-15
0-6
92-176
118-154
70-112
0.15-0.35
0.00-0.0:i
0.13-0.30
o.oo-o.o.-?
0.00-0.02
2.7-3.8
4.7-10.0
0.04-0.12
0.00-0.04
0.00-0.01
0.01-0.22
< 0.1-0. 3
0.01-0.06
0.0
<0.05-O.OC-
1.3-2.3
0.05-0.24
0.02-0.09
0.6-2.3 •
Less than

-------
          The White River and Bull Shoals Lake water quality
in the Lakeview area is generally very good and meets applicable
water quality standards.  Low-dissolved oxygen (DO) concentra-
tions have been recorded below the dam a few times because
de-oxygenated water was released from the lake's deep-water
level.*  Reoxygenation occurs rapidly, however, and the problem ;
has not been severe (ADPC&E, 1976a,b).
          Cold water releases from Bull Shoals Dam have greatly
altered the temperature and related fisheries characteristics
of the river.   Whether this alteration constitutes water
quality degradation is problematical since the artificially
sustained trout fisheries are extremely popular.
5.2.2  Ground Water Setting
          The bedrock beneath the site area down to the Pre-
cambrian basement contains both major and minor aquifers.   The
surficial Cotter-Jefferson City dolomite (a magnesium carbonate
rock) formation is considered a minor aquifer.   Fractures  in the
350-ft-thick formation yield flows on the order of 10 to 15 gpm.
This is suitable for domestic and farm wells, but the shallow
depth makes them susceptible to pollution.   Most of the domestic
wells in the area are in this formation.
          The underlying Roubidoux formation, consisting of a
sandstone with interbedded cherty dolomite,  is a major aquifer
yielding up to 350 gpm.   The 800-ft-deep wells in the Lakeview
area obtain their water from this aquifer.
          The dolomitic Van Buren formation and its basal
member, the Gunter Sandstone, lie beneath the Roubidoux and
are considered a major aquifer.   The yields  are on the order
of 50 to 75 gpm, but higher yields have been reported.   Wells
in the Gunter formation are on the order of 1100  ft deep in
this area.
6.0 mg/1,  and temperatures should not exceed 68°F because of
* The minimum dissolved oxygen standard for trout streams is
6.0 mg/1,  and tei
man-made causes.

                            40

-------
          The overburden materials in the Lakeview area consist
of residual materials produced by the weathering of dolomite
and limestone bedrock.   The upper part of the bedrock is
typically jointed, and solution and weathering have produced a
fractured zone.   The depth of major fractures and whether
hydraulic connections exist between the Cotter-Jefferson City
formation and the underlying Roubidoux aquifer have not been
defined.
          Groundwater generally lies at about 110-ft depth in
the Lakeview plateau area.  At the site, streams act as both
recharge and discharge features depending upon the duration
and intensity of rainfall and the degree of soil moisture at
the time of the event.   The water levels may be lowered and a
cone of depression formed in the vicinity of each pumping
well.   However, the aquifers have sufficient water so drawdown
will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the pumping well
without affecting the regional water table.
          Porosity and permeability in carbonate rock are due
to solution of the rock.  The permeability of limestone is
also due to joints and bedding planes.  In this area the
recharge and ground water flow are considered rapid and the
water may travel long distances underground.   Pollution can be
a problem because of the fractures, since large .volumes of
pollution could enter and travel rapidly through the ground-
water system.
5.2.3   Effects of Construction on Hydrologic Elements
          Some soil will enter the local surface waters because
of erosion during construction.  Even with heavy rainfall
during  the time of excavation, the localized short-term adverse
effect  of turbidity and sedimentation in Bull Shoals Lake and
the White River will be minimal because of the small amount of
excavation open at a time and the relatively large size of the
water bodies involved.
                            41

-------
          Improper installation of sewer lines could disrupt
or contaminate the public water supply system.  In accordance
with Arkansas Department of Public Health regulations, water
main location maps will be used to avoid main breakage and
sanitary sewers and water mains will be kept as far apart as
practicable.  Water mains which are necessarily close to
sewers will  be at least 18 inches above the top of the sewer
line.
5.2.4  Effects of Operation on Hydro!ogic Elements
          Potentially unfavorable long-term impacts include
the effects of the point-source discharge to the White River;
sludge generation and disposal problems; contamination from
sewer line leakage; the fact that some development in the area
with existing or potential on-site disposal problems will not
be served; and the loss of groundwater recharge, soil moisture,
and plant nutrients from on-site disposal systems.
          Primary long-term water-quality benefits will  be
protecting and improving ground water quality and assuring
that future degradation of surface waters,  as well  as ground
water from nonpoint septic tank sources, will be largely
eliminated in the Lakeview area.   The project will  help  to
maintain the valuable and high-quality water resources of Bull
Shoals Lake and the White River.
          The Lakeview discharge will have  negligible water
quality impact on the White River.  The target load assimilative
capacity for the reach of the White River from Bull Shoals Dam
to Crooked Creek (27.2 miles downstream) is 11,126 Ib BOD/day
(Arkansas Department of Pollution Control  and Ecology,  1976b).
The design Lakeview discharge at the 5 mg/1  effluent limit
will contribute 12.5 Ib/day.   The fecal coliform effluent
standard of 200 per 100 ml is essentially the same as the
Class A and AA stream standard.   With this  high effluent
quality and a low flow dilution factor of more than 230  to 1,
                            42

-------
there will be no significant increase in fecal coliform con-
centration.   The increase in stream temperature from the
discharge, assuming the maximum wastewater flow at 95°F and
low flow stream conditions with a temperature of 65°F will be
0.2°F.  The suspended solids discharge of 15 mg/1 will cause
no measurable increase in turbidity of the White River.
          The effects on surface-water quality are prevention
of contamination from degraded ground water inflow, and effluent
surfacing and runoff from malfunctioning septic tank systems.
Because most development in Lakeview is near and/or drains
toward Bull Shoals Lake, the project will benefit the lake
more than the White River.  Since there is no current evidence
of significant degradation of Bull Shoals Lake in the Lakeview
area, these benefits will be largely preventive.   A substantial
long-term benefit will be eliminating unsanitary conditions
caused by effluent-surfacing from overloaded or malfunctioning
on-site disposal systems.  The project will also eliminate the
suspected practice of spreading septage (sludge pumped from
septic tanks) on fields rather than proper disposal at a
wastewater treatment plant.
          The loss of ground water recharge will  be insignifi-
cant.  Depletion of the Cotter-Jefferson City formation has
not been a problem since the area has plentiful ground water
recharge and modest withdrawals.  The beneficial  effects on
water quality far outweigh any recharge losses.
          The project will pose no health or other problems
for downstream water supplies in view of the 70-mile distance
to the nearest downstream water system, the relatively small
effluent flow, a large stream-dilution factor, the absence of
industrial waste hazards, the existing high water-quality, and
the advanced level of wastewater treatment.
                            43

-------
5.2.5  Reliability Factors
          The collection-and-treatment system reliability is
important to assure full realization of the long-term benefits
and prevent nuisance conditions from odors or sewage overflow.
Proper operation and maintenance are essential.   One and
one-half man-years are allocated for operation and maintenance
of the Lakeview system, which is a reasonable level according
to experience with other communities and the judgment of a
representative of the State Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology.  The Town of Flippin uses one and one-half man-
years for a system of similar size, and two man-years are
allotted for the planned Bull Shoals system, which will have
seven more pump stations, nearly twice the design treatment
capacity, and a treatment process likely to require closer
operational monitoring and control.
          The proposed treatment process should provide good
overall stability and resistance to upset.   It is relatively
simple to operate.  The large wastewater flow fluctuations
associated with seasonal tourist activities should pose no
undue problems.   Since there are no industrial discharges, the
possibility of acute problems from toxic wastes  is small.
Adoption and enforcement of a proper sewer use-ordinance will
help to insure that unauthorized connections and problem
wastes do not damage treatment facilities or compromise
efficiency.
          Stand-by power generators and a dual oxygen transfer
system will be provided at the treatment plant.   Individual
treatment units can be removed from service for  maintenance  or
repair without serious loss of treatment plant capacity and
effectiveness.
          Several 8- and 10-inch gravity collection lines  are
planned to closely follow the shoreline of Bull  Shoals  Lake.
Much of this lakeshore area is rather steep with shallow,
                            44

-------
fractured rock, and is close to heavily-used water contact-
recreation areas.   Sewer-line leakage or exfiltration in these      Rev'd*
rocky areas can result in nearly direct seepage into the lake,
causing pollution and possible health risks.   The joints used
for gravity pipe in the Lakeview system will  be the same as
those used for pressure pipe and will minimize exfiltration.
Significant leakage is unlikely and would only occur if there
is a break in the line.
          To prevent ground- and surface-water pollution near
the proposed treatment plant, leaching from the lagoons and
sludge disposal sites will be prevented by an added plastic or
bentonite clay lining.  The cost of such lining is included in
the estimated project costs.  An under-drain system to collect
leachate and carry it back to the plant for treatment will
also be installed.

5.3  BIOLOGY
5.3.1  Terrestrial Setting
          Upland hardwoods and bottom land forests character-
ize the general vegetation, with the specific type depending
on the immediate soil conditions, the amount of sunlight, and
past fire control.  The prominent vegetation types and their
associated faunal components at the proposed Lakeview site are
discussed below and shown in Exhibit 16.
          The  Red Oak-White Oak-Shagbark Hickory-type is found
on the best sites in both the uplands and lowlands.  It is the
climax-type of the oak-hickory forest region.  The common
reptiles in the forest include the northern fence lizard,
five-lined skink, prairie ringneck snake, black rat snake,
northern copperhead, and timber rattlesnake.   Common mammals
include the eastern mole, cottontail rabbit,  white-footed
mouse, raccoon, grey fox, and white-tailed deer.  Commonly

*  Revised from Draft;  see A. W. Weitkamp's comments of Aug. 21, 1978.

                            45

-------
           Exhibit 16
    VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES
White
River
Maple-
Elm
Type
Bottom-
land
Old
Field
and
Pasture
Red Oak-
White.
Oak
Type
Black Oak-
Black
Hickory and)
Post Oak-
Winged Elm
Type
Red Cedar
Type
Red Oak-   Up-
White Oak  land
Type       Old
          Field
           and
           'as-
           sure
Buildings
             Excav.
             Site
        Plant
         Site
                         Excavation
                           Sites

-------
observed woodland breeding bird species include turkey vultures;
red-tailed hawks; mourning doves; yellow-billed cuckoos;
yellow-shafted flickers; red bellied, red-headed, and downy
woodpeckers; eastern wood pewees; bluejays; crows; black-capped
chickadees; tufted titmice; white-breasted nuthatches; robins;
summer tanagers; and cardinals.
          The Black Oak-Black Hickory-type is found on dry
east-facing and west-facing slopes intermediate in moisture
and fertility between the Red Oak and Post Oak forests.   The
vertebrates in this forest are similar to those in the Red Oak
forest.  Tree squirrels and deer are most abundant in this
forest.
          The Post Oak-Blackjack Oak-Winged Elm-Black Hickory-type
is found on dry south-facing slopes intermediate in moisture
and fertility between the Black Oak and Red Cedar types.  The
vertebrates in this forest are similar to those in the Red Oak
forest.  These forests usually support fewer numbers of species
because the poor soil fertility produces a smaller mast yield.
          The Red Cedar-type is found on bluffs, bald knobs,
rocky glades, and upland old fields.   The cedars provide
favorite food for wintering robins, bluebirds, cedar waxwings,
and cardinals.
          The Silver Maple-Birch-American Elm-Sycamore-
Cottonwood-type occurs in the narrow and well-drained valleys
of the floodplain that are not subject to prolonged submergence.
5.3.2  Aquatic Setting
     a.   Plankton
          The fluctuating levels of the White River below Bull
Shoals Dam have eliminated most aquatic macrophytes.   Brown
et al_  (1967) reported a total of 68 genera of phytoplankton
comprising 99.9 percent of the net plankton collected in the
Bull Shoals tailwater.  The numerically dominant phyla were
Chrysophyta and Cyanophyta, and diatoms comprised the majority
                            46

-------
of the Chrysophyta.  Twenty-five genera of zooplankton were
identified.  Rotifers were the most abundant group of zoo-
plankton and nauplii were the most commonly taken copepods.
Difflugia was the most abundant protozoan, and Bosmina and
Daphnia were the most abundant cladocerans.  The tailwater
community of the White River is generally augmented by lake
plankton just below the impoundment, but the lake plankton
soon decrease under river conditions.
     b.   Benthic Macroinvertebrates
          Bull Shoals tailwaters were abundant in the benthic
macroinvertebrates, Amphipoda, Tendipedidae, Isopoda, and
Oligochaeta (Brown, et aj 1967).  Several  factors including
large and frequent fluctuations in water level  and cold-water
temperatures throughout the year presumably restrict the
benthic fauna to those organisms capable of withstanding these
conditions.
     c.   Fish
          The White River was once a productive sport and
commercial warm-water fishery.   Cold tailwaters resulting from
completing Bull  Shoals Dam killed the native fish and ruined
the sport and commercial  fisheries on a 100-mile stretch of
the river.  Careful planning and an intensive trout-stocking
program by the Arkansas Game and Fish Department has created
the largest and most productive put-and-take trout stream in
the nation.  The 750,000 trout that are annually stocked now
comprise 99 percent of the gamefish in this section of the
river.   The trout are not self-sustaining  since natural  repro-
duction is retarded by stream flow fluctuation  and is in-
sufficient to support intense fishing pressures.   While  the
stocked area extends for 100 miles, 75 percent  of the trout
are in the 50- or 60-mile stretch below the dam,  and most of
the trophy-size trout are caught in the first 20-mile stretch.
An estimated 250,000 man-days of fishing in the area generated
$25 million in revenues over a four-county region.

                            47

-------
5.3.3  Effects of Construction on Fish and Wildlife
          No threatened and endangered fish, amphibian, or
reptile species are known to be found in the Lakeview area.
Turbidity during construction will be temporary and minor and
should be harmless to fish species.
          The only endangered bird species in the Lakeview
area is the Southern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) a
winter transient.   Eagles are known to feed below reservoirs
on dead or stunned fish that have traveled through hydro-
electric generators.   The noise resulting from extensive
blasting from construction may temporarily drive the eagle
from the Lakeview area.
          Both the Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) and the Indiana
Bat (Myotis sodalis) are endangered mammals which use the
caves in north central Arkansas as winter hibernacula.   While
they do not use the large commercial or extensively altered
caves in the Lakeview area (e.g., Bull Shoals caverns and
Saltpeter Cave), they may use the smaller caves located high
in the bluffs.  Indiana and Gray bats are highly sensitive to
disturbances resulting from man's activities; thus, a colony
inhabiting a cave in the immediate area will be vulnerable to
blasting during construction.   The most serious condition will
be if blasting coincides with hibernation periods (late October
to late March).  Such disturbances will  arouse the bats,
causing them to rapidly metabolize their limited stores of fat
reserves and make them susceptive to disease or hinder their
success in surviving the winter (Harvey, 1976).   Blasting in
the winter months will have an adverse impact on bat colonies
if present in the area.   Blasting during the summer months
will adversely affect the cave-dwelling maternity colonies of
the Gray Bat, which will probably move to other caves if
                            48

-------
disturbed.   The Indiana Bat, whose nurseries are more arboreal
in nature,  will not be adversely affected.
          There will be minor adverse short-term effects
involving the local small 'vertebrate species populations
during construction activities.   This will result from loss of
habitat, forcing them to suffer from the limited carrying
capacity of the surrounding area.
5.3.4  Effects of Construction on Vegetation
          Excavation for the approximately 22 miles of collec-
tion system will adversely affect about 10 acres of mixed
upland and lowland forest types and areas already disturbed by
development.   Since most of the collection system will parallel
existing roads, vegetative damage will be reduced.   The contractor
will be cautioned against excessive injury to vegetation, and
construction inspection should further insure that injury is
not excessive.  Most vegetational/habitat losses that will
occur are primary short-term adverse impacts that cannot be
avoided and constitute an irretrievable commitment of resources.
Some of the large trees can be salvaged for firewood or lumber
while branches and roots can be chipped for mulch.   The natural
grasses and herbs are expected to quickly reestablish themselves
along the sewer lines.
          The proposed treatment plant will .eliminate about
eight acres of bottomland pasture.   Mitigative measures will
include landscaping to blend with the surrounding natural
environment and programs to restore grassy vegetation at the
construction site.
     The only endangered plant known to be found in the Lake-
view vicinity is an oak tree, the Ozark Chinquapin (Castana
ozarkensis) which appears on the Federal  endangered species
list.  Since this species has not been observed in the project
                            49

-------
area and has a scattered distribution throughout southwest
Missouri and northwest Arkansas, it will not be adversely
affected by the project.  No existing or potential natural
area sites under the Arkansas Environmental Preservation
Commission are near the proposed project.
          Construction-related soil erosion and resultant
localized turbidity will result in very minor adverse short-
term impacts on aquatic plant species because light penetra-
tion and the photosynthetic zone are reduced.
5.3.5  Effects of Operation on Fish and Wildlife
          Operation of the proposed project should not cause
any adverse impacts on wildlife species.  Water-quality
considerations are of paramount importance because of the
extensive and economically important recreational and commercial
fishery.
          Chiorination is an effective and economical way to
disinfect sewage.  However, chlorine is an extremely strong
biocide and may result in long-term damage to aquatic life.   A
2 mg/1 effluent residual would result in a stream concentration
of approximately 0.01 mg/1 at low-flow (110+ cfs) and maximum
effluent discharge (0.69 cfs).  Studies show this value is
near or within the lethal range for the brown and rainbow
trout which inhabit the tailwaters below Bull Shoals Dam
(Merkens 1958; Mich. Dept. Nat. Res. 1971).
          The EPA Task Force Report (1976a) indicates that
chlorine concentrations below 0.002 mg/1 have no adverse
effect on cold-water fish such as trout.  Their recommenda-
tions indicate residual chlorine in the receiving waters
should not exceed 0.002 mg/1.  In the light of the information
presented against chlorinated discharges, the Arkansas Department
of Pollution Control and Ecology has required dechlorination
                            50

-------
before discharging treated wastewaters from the proposed
project.
          Several studies evaluated the effects of various
dechlorination methods on the toxicity of chlorinated wastes.
Arthur e_t a\_ (1975) reported chlorine toxicity was greatly
reduced or eliminated by using sodium thiosulfate, sodium
biosulfate, and sulfur dioxide.   Studies published by Martens
et al_ (1974) and Nebel et aj (1973) state they observed no
acute salmon mortality in undiluted effluent after dechlorina-
tion by storage in a lagoon.   Dechlorinated effluent should
not adversely affect the trout population as a whole; the
trout, however, may shun the area around the sewage outfall
which will be located on the river bank.
          Attempts to mitigate the enrichment effect by using
other dilution principles such as midstream and multiple-outlet
systems may prove to be less effective.   These two outfall
types produce a quick mixing of sewage and stream water which
forms a zone of concentrated sewage across a stream,  causing
heavy fish depletion and an ecological barrier adversely
affecting both fish movement and migration.   In contrast,  the
bank outfall better dilutes and more naturally purifies the
effluent  by taking a longer time to more efficiently mix the
effluent  with water across the stream.  From.the viewpoint of
fish protection, the simple bank outfall  is more effective
than the  other, more complicated types (Tsai,  1973).
          As discussed in Section 3.4c,  ozonation is  also  a
promising disinfection alternative which will  also protect
the trout.  Because of new developments  in applying ozonation
and dechlorination systems, final selection of the disinfection
process will be determined during detailed Step 2 planning
and design.
          Trout, a representative species of Salmonidae, have
the lowest thermal tolerance of fresh-water fishes.   Their
maximum upper lethal temperature is barely over 25°C  (77°F)

                            51

-------
(Brett, 1956, and Fry et al_. ,  1946), and lethargy is apparent
at 21°F (70°F) (Baker and Keith, oral communication) and may
potentially lead trout to physiological stress.
          The project's thermal impact on the White River will
be affected by the fluctuating maximum and minimum discharges
caused by hydroelectric generation at Bull Shoals Dam.   The
most critical period will be during minimum generation in the
summer when the 110+ cfs low flow will be mixed with the
maximum wastewater plant effluent of 0,69 cfs from the aerated
lagoons which have been heated by high ambient temperatures.
          Arkansas Game and Fish Commission temperature data
indicate there were several days during the summer of 1977
when water temperatures were 72°F or higher during the daylight
hours at Cotter Station (20 river miles below Bull Shoals
Dam).  Adding treatment plant effluent and the resultant
slight temperature increase at these times can be detrimental
to the trout program (Keith,  see letter from the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission).  "Detrimental" does not necessarily
imply death for the trout, but rather a potential stress
situation in which the fish may avoid this stretch of the
river in preference for waters in keeping with temperatures of
their normal .habitat.  By far the overriding factor, however,
will be the amount, schedule,  and temperature of the releases
from Bull Shoals Dam.
          Another associated thermal effect involves a potential
thermal plume resulting from the proposed single discharge-point
for the treatment plant.  A condition may arise that could
limit the normal movements of the trout within the tailwaters
or create a temporary barrier during minimal periods of genera-
tion.  As was stated previously, any attempted mitigative
measure involving different outfall types may result in a more
serious consequence.
          In summary, while the trout may avoid the outfall
site during low-flow periods,  the Lakeview discharge will

                            52

-------
have a minimal adverse effect on trout and other aquatic
species of the White River.  The communities of Cotter and
Bull Shoals, however, have also recently planned or built
wastewater treatment plants designed to discharge into the
White River and to meet similar stringent discharge require-
ments.  Careful monitoring and compliance with discharge
requirements will minimize potential cumulative effects.

5.4  SOC10-ECONOMICS
5.4.1  Socio-Economic Setting
          Lakeview, Arkansas is a small and relatively young
community on the south shore of Bull Shoals Lake just southeast
of the dam and the community of Bull Shoals.   Incorporated in
1973, its city limits form a linear pattern on either side of
Arkansas Highway 178, and adjoin several unincorporated residen-
tial and recreational developments to its north, east, and
west.  Bull Shoals State Park, the Lakeview Recreational-Use
Area, Edgewood Bay, and Leisure Hills further extend the
pattern of development along this particular highway facility.
          The Lakeview service area is best characterized as a
recreation and retirement community with a population which is
principally interested in the benefits of its lakeside location.
A local resident survey shows the majority has lived in the
community for less than 10 years and moved from some other
state.  About 85 percent of its population is above high
school age, many are retired, and most own their own homes.
Tourist and recreation-oriented businesses are the major
employers.  Fourteen motels have a total of 155 units, and
restaurants, service stations, and a principal  retail  shopping
area complete the business district.  The resident labor  force
is about 29 percent of the community population, and nearly
                            53

-------
half work within the city limits.   The derived family income
for 60 percent of the residents is over $8,000 a year, while
22 percent have incomes below $5,000 a year and 3 percent         Rev'd*
have incomes below $3,000 a year (Northwest Arkansas Planning
Commission, 1977).
          Edgewood Bay is a residential development of about
85 single-family homes, and Leisure Hills South is a residential
development of about 60 single-family and duplex units.   Both
adjoin Lakeview on the northeast.
          Bull Shoals State Park,  with facilities for boating,
camping, lodging, picnicking, and swimming, is operated by the
Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.  It has a central
sewer system with a small treatment plant.
          The Lakeview Recreation Area is one of 21 public-use
areas on Bull Shoals Lake operated by the United States Army
Corps of Engineers and has facilities for camping, boating,
fishing, swimming, picnicking, etc.
          The proposed project is not covered in a Regional,
Basin, or Areawide Plan.   The Northwest Arkansas Economic
Development District, Inc. has prepared a Comprehensive Develop-
ment Plan for the City of Lakeview which was adopted in final
form on March 14, 1977 (Ordinance No. 4).  The approved plan
includes objectives and policies to provide a sanitary sewer
system to protect the environment from pollution by inadequate
septic tank systems.
     a.   Population
          Lakeview1s population in the 1975 special census
year was 450 and the current adjusted 1977 figure is 530.   The
town has been in existence for only a short time but a study
of existing and potential trends has been made.   The current
and projected population  levels for the project areas are

* Revised from Draft; see R. E. Lee's comments of August 21, 1978.
                            54

-------
shown in Exhibit 17.  The figures shown are based on an analy-
sis of population trends of Lakeview and the surrounding
communities (see Exhibit 18).   The population increases be-
tween 1970 and the special census year range from +10.6 percent
for Cotter to +181.3 percent for Lakeview1s neighbor, Bull
Shoals.
          A special census was conducted in the Town of Lakeview    Rev'd*
in the spring of 1978.   The special  census  indicated a population
of 484 persons in 230 dwelling units compared with 450 persons
in 180 dwelling units at the time of the 1975 census.  The
population growth was 7.6%; however, the growth in number
of dwelling units was 27.8 percent.   The person conducting
the census indicated that an unusually large number of vacancies
(23 homes and three apartment units) and other factors resulted
in an unrepresentatively low population figure, and stated
that nearly all of the vacant units  have since been occupied.
The growth in dwelling units correlates to  an expected increase
of 100 to 125 persons which is essentially  in line with the
population projection of 530 in 1977 and over 550 in 1978.
It is concluded that the earlier population projections for
Lakeview are still reasonable in view of the latest information.
          Regardless of the project, the Lakeview community
(including areas outside the town limits) is expected to have
a large increase in population of about 1,650 people between
1977 and 1995, the design period. This growth to 3,000 will
parallel the recent growth of Bull Shoals and other communi-
ties in the region.  Transient population using the Lakeview
public-use area and the State Park are accounted for by using
a "population-equivalent" of 730 persons, so 2,270 people will
actually be year-round residents. The 1977-1995 projections
are based on a straight-line percentage of  38.6 percent for
each 5-year period.  This percentage was derived from the 17.7

* Revised from Draft; see A.  W.  Weitkamp's  and R.  E.  Lee's
  comments of August 21, 1978.
                            55

-------
                             EXHIBIT  17
                          LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS
                            POPULATION DATA
                      LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM
                                   1975 .  1977   1980   1985  1990   1995
Town of Lakeview

Lakeview Public-Use Area
(Population Equivalent)

Bull Shoals State Park
(Population Equivalent)
450

160


250


300
Areas Outside of Town Limits

  Edgewood Bay (2.0 per HH)

  Leisure Hills (1.83 per HH)

  Riverside Trailer Park (1.85 per HH)

  Other

                    TOTALS:        1160
 530

 195


 250


 375

(170)

(110)

( 25)

( 70)

1350
625

230


250


425
865  1200

230   230


500   500


500   550
             1530   2095  2480
1675

 230


 500


 600

(305)

(115)  Rev'd*

( 25)

(155) Rev'd*

3000
Notes:  (1)  1975 census figures for Town of Lakeview from special census.
             The 1977 population figure was computed by the following
             formula: 1975 special-census population (450)  by number of
             1975 dwelling units (180) = number of persons per household
             (HH) (2.50).  1975 person per HH 2.50) x number of 1977 dwelling
             (units  (212) = 1977 population (530).

        (2)  1980, 1985, 1990, 1995 projection and based on a straight-line
             method  using a calculated 38.6% increase for 5-year period.

        (3)  1975 estimate for area outside town limits based on house
             count.  1980, 1985, and 1995 projections for the residential
             developments outside the town limits based on expected 100%
             growth  in 20-year period.

        (4)  Lakeview public-use area figures are based on information
             provided by the  Little Rock District, U.S. Army Corps of
             Engineers.

        (5)  Bull Shoals State Park figures are based on information
             provided by Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism.

        (6)  "Other" includes unincorporated development near Lakeview
             and in  the Gaston Road area which would also be served by
             the proposed project.
   Revised  from  Draft;  see R. E. Lee's comments of September 18, 1978.

-------
                             EXHIBIT 18

                          POPULATION TRENDS
                         OF-SURROUNDING TOWNS
                         1950-60
                                   Special-
                         1960-70   Census
Town
1950 1960 % Chg.   1970   % Chg.
                    1970-Census-
                    Year Change
Year    Population  % Change
Bull Shoals
Cotter
Flippin
Gassville
Mountain Home
Lake view
-
1,089
646
273
2,217
-
268
683
433
233
2,105
-
-
-37.
-32.
-14.
- 5.
-

2
9
6
0

430
858
626
434
3,936
-
+ 60.
+ 25.
+ 44.
+ 86.
+ 86.
-
4
6
5
2
9

(1975)*
(1976)
(1975)
(1972)
(1976)
(1975)
1,210
949
1,026
673
6,415
450
+181.
+ 10.
+ 63.
+ 55.
+ 62.
-
3
6
8
0
9

  Recognized Town Estimate (Source:  Proposed Sanitary
  Sewage Improvements, City of Bull  Shoals, Arkansas.
  E.P.A. Grant No.  6-05-0395-01-0,  Step 1, Facility Plan
  and Environmental  Assessment, May 1975,  Rogers and
  Associates, Inc.,  Consulting Engineers,  Fort Smith,
  Arkansas)
Source:    Population Trends,  Table 2,  Page 8
          Socio-Economic Profile,  (1977) Northwest Arkansas
          Economic Development District, Inc.

-------



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  LEGEND


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ::::::•    RESIDENTIAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   COMMERCIAL
sovnci' itrr LAKJVIIW COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN;
      NOMTNWfST ARKANSAS ECONOMIC OCVELOPMENT DISTRICT
•^•^•i    WMTIITI i_r\vi/-iL_

t-^J   RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE 8
 c»<*.   PROTECTED  DRAIN AGE-SHOREL
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  LOCAL COLLECTOR

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  PROTECTED DRAINAGEWAYS

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  SECONDARY DEVELOPMENT

-------
percent increase occurring between the 1975 special-census and
the 1977 population update, and further projecting a 17.7
percent increase and 1980 population of 624.  The difference
between the 1975 population (450) and the projected 1980
population (624) is 174 for a 38.6 percent increase.
          Some of the factors supporting this future-growth
projection are:  Lakeview and the surrounding area have grown
rapidly because of mild climate and low tax rates; the location
of Bull Shoals Lake combined with attractive residential
development; the scenic and quiet atmosphere which makes it
attractive for retired persons; and Bull Shoals State Park,
Bull Shoals Lake, the White River, and the natural beauty of
the physical environment offer a wide range of recreational
opportunities.
          Bull Shoals Lake was built in 1951 and filled in
1952.  Fish productivity for this kind of lake generally peaks
then decreases and levels off within 15 years from the date it
was filled.  This means that fishing in the lake leveled off
in the 1960's.  The decrease in fish production has not hampered
increased population growth.  The highest population increases
for towns surrounding the lake have occurred since 1970.
          The  Lakeview area will remain an attractive and
peaceful community to live in.   The anticipated .population
will reflect a balanced community with the character and
life-style expected by those who live there.
     b.   Land Use
          Lakeview's corporate limits cover about 665 acres,
the majority of which is undeveloped.   Developed uses cover
119 acres (or  17.9 percent of the total), and the remaining
546 acres (82.1 percent) are undeveloped and open-space uses;
however, 250 acres (46 percent) are platted for development.        Rev'c^
Exhibits 19 and 20 show the current land uses.   Residential
uses comprise  65.3 acres (54.8 percent of the developed uses)

*  Revised from Draft
                            56

-------
with a 1977 total of 212 dwelling units — 202 single-family,
6 two-family and 4 multi-family.  The commercial development
(40 establishments or 133 individual units) is for the most
part located along State Highway 178, and is generally supported
by the recreational activity within the area.
5.4.2  Effects of Construction on Socio-Economic Elements
          People will not be relocated as a result of the
project, and construction will have no direct effect on the
population of Lakeview.
          The treatment plant will  take about eight acres of
bottom land pasture near the White  River.   Because the area is
presently undeveloped, building the treatment plant will  alter
its present character.  In addition, the several  collection
system pumping stations will require small enclosures.
               The necessary land will be acquired by the city
through the eminent domain process.   Although the subject
property is located outside the town limits,  Arkansas State
Statutes give city officials the authority to acquire land for
specific public work projects within a 10-mile radius of  the
city or town.
          Constructing the Lakeview sewer system will cause
temporary and localized disruption  of the community's social
environment which will,  at times, be a major  inconvenience.   A
certain amount of blasting is expected to be  required to
facilitate the mechanical  operations of trench excavation.
Blasting, of course, can be dangerous, but it need not be if
appropriate precautions are taken.   When blasting does  occur,
proper consideration will  be given  to adjacent structures to
avoid damage to private property.
          Much trenching will be required when construction
starts, and this will disrupt the present community circulation
patterns.  Appropriate construction techniques will  to  a  large
extent minimize this problem.  Excavation and  pipe installation
                            57

-------
will proceed concurrently and in only one part of the community
at a time.  Barricades will be installed around the work site
to protect both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.  Generally,
however, pedestrian traffic should not be inconvenienced to
the extent that vehicular traffic will be.
          The substantial monetary investment will have both
short- and long-term benefits for the area's economic structure.
The most important short-term benefit will be construction
employment opportunities.  While these jobs will be of relatively
short duration, they will stimulate secondary economic effects
as the investment passes through the area's economic structure.
Although Lakeview will benefit economically from constructing
the sewer system, the region will probably experience greater
benefits.  Since there are no construction companies in Lakeview,
the town will have to contract with a non-local firm, which
means the employment opportunities, salaries, and profits will
largely be felt outside of the community.
5.4.3  Effects of Operation on Socio-Economic Elements
5.4.3.1  Primary Effects.  Primary effects are those resulting
directly from the project.
     a.   Population
          There will be no direct effect on population from
operation of the project.
     b.   Land Use
          There will be no long-term direct effect on land use
from operation of the project.
     c.   Economic Effects
          An estimated annual income of $108,850 will be required
to  finance Lakeview1s share of the project cost (See Exhibit
13) with an average cost per unit of $13.00/month or $156.OO/
year including costs of private sewer line hook-up and filling
existing  septic tanks with gravel.  This cost represents about
                            58

-------
1.95% of a family income of $8,000 per year, 3.12% of $5,000       Rev'd*
per year, 5.20% of $3,000 per year, or 1.20% of the U.S. median
family income of about $13,000 per year.  Those families (22%)
with incomes below $5,000 will have some financial difficulty
paying the user charge.
          Operating and maintaining the proposed facility will
have long-term economic effects.   One or more jobs will be
provided by the City to monitor and maintain the system.
     d.   Aesthetic Effects
          Visual effect of the treatment plant on natural
beauty is an adverse impact which cannot be avoided.   Visual
impact of the treatment plant will be minimized by setting the
plant back from the River and landscaping, including trees to
supplement the thin existing river bank border at the proposed
plant site.  The treatment plant facilities will have a maximum
height of about 20 ft above ground.  Since the ground is about
25 ft above normal water level, this bank elevation should
also be used to break the line of sight from the river to the
treatment plant.
5.4.3.2  Secondary Effects.   Secondary, or indirect,  effects
may appear immediately after construction is completed, but
there is usually a time delay before they are noticed.   Several
such effects are identified herein: induced population growth,
land use, induced community development, the need for additional
community services, and economic effects.
     a.    Population
          The project is not expected to greatly affect the
type of development within Lakeview, and the community will
retain its present recreationally-oriented retirement-community
character.  Constructing the project will  enhance and,  to a
limited extent, stimulate the ultimate growth potential of
this already rapidly growing community.   Given its location as

* Revised from Draft; see R.  E.  Lee's comments of August 21,  1978.

                            59

-------
a lakeside community in an area of already rapid growth and
in-migration, Lakeview will inevitably attract some of this
regional activity.
          The Lakeview service area is projected to grow to a
sizeable 3,000 people by 1995 with or without added treatment
facilities.   The surrounding communities (other than Mountain
Home) should be noted as having grown without public sewer
systems.
          Arkansas law requires each septic system site pass a
percolation test before the system can be installed.  The
ultimate population growth without the project will partly
depend on the overall saturation point of the soil on an
individual lot basis, as well as the collective effect of
numerous individual septic tank systems.  The present 555 vacant
platted lots within the town limits can not legally be required
to provide additional space for leach fields.   Septic tank
development, therefore, cannot be prohibited or appreciably
altered under existing controls.  Substantial  problems are
likely to occur continuously over the next 20 years in present
and future septic systems because of troubles inherent in
septic tank systems, the area's soils, topography, and small-lot
development characteristics.
     b.   Community Development and Land Use
          The sanitary sewer system will greatly enhance the
efficiency with which land can be used, and will ultimately
alter both the rate and density of development.   While a
variety of land-use categories can be more densely developed,
the greatest effect is expected in the residential housing
market.
          The project is not expected to change the type of
development.  Future land-use trends are expected to follow
the already established patterns, with most of the residential
development occurring on the north side of State Highway 178
                            60

-------
and strip commercial-development all along the same facility.
Industrial development is not expected in the project area and
the proposed project is not expected to change this.  New
homes and services attracted to the area will, in the long
term, benefit the economy, tax base, and employment opportunities.
Recreational areas will more easily be upgraded and expanded
because sewage treatment and disposal will no longer be an
obstacle.
          1.   Residential Development
          Thus far, residences have been built in those parts
of Lakeview where land was made available for development
purposes.   These are in the older, more intensely developed
areas in the western part of the community, and in the newly-
platted, yet more sparsely developed, areas in its eastern
sector.  The principal effects of the proposed sewer system
can be expected to be in locations which are not yet platted
for development.
          Residential growth will initially occur in those
generally vacant areas that have already been platted (555
lots).  All such locations north of Arkansas Highway 178 will
be particularly susceptible to this activity.   Areas of secondary
development potential will include the platted areas south of
the same highway, and the occasional vacant areas in the older
parts of the City.   The new developments will  basically be
single-family units.   The large majority of residential  areas
are zoned only for single-family residences, with multi-family
housing designated for the southwestern sector of the community
near the major tourist-type commercial  developments.   Given
the character of the existing multi-family housing in Lakeview,
this more intense residential  use will  probably not be greater
than six-family units.
          Large areas of residentially developable land in
town (249 acres) have not been platted simply because the land
is not yet prime for development.   The principal  effect the

                            61

-------
proposed system will ultimately have on Lakeview will be to
increase the value of these larger undeveloped and unplatted
parcels within and outside the town limits through an enhance-
ment of their ultimate use-potential.   As a result, the future
value of these areas can be expected to simply become too
great to be either left unused or remain in agricultural
production.  An additional 498 units or more (2.50 x 498 =
1,245 people) can be built after 1995 if the 249 acres within
the town limits are developed.
          2.   Commercial Development
          Recreation is the present basis for Lakeview1s
economy.  Induced commercial activity is more a matter of
population growth and the further development of a well-defined
market area.  The proposed sewer project is not expected to
have any direct effect on future commercial development.
Commercial development will, instead, be more dependent upon
induced population growth resulting from increasing recreational
activity and Lakeview's status as a retirement community.
However, since many commercial establishments are experiencing
septic system problems, a sewer system will alleviate existing
conditions and will make it easier to expand and solve operational
and maintenance problems.
          Certain minor changes can be be expected to occur
and, if the project is built, local commercial activity will
eventually become more diversified and serve not only a
recreation-oriented population, but also a larger number of
permanent residents.  Diversification will not only be evident
as a larger number of retail outlets, but also as a larger
number of retail functions.  Commercial activity will probably
continue to be located on State Highway 178, extending eastward
from the present retailing area.
          3.   Recreational Development
          Tourism and recreational activities have been, and
are, the basis for continued community development.  Although

                            62

-------
fishing on the lake has decreased from its peak production
period, the overall use of recreational facilities has fluctuated
with the economy since 1972 as shown in Exhibit 21.
          The 1977 figures show an increased number of people
visited the general Lakeview area.  The 1976 figures are the
lowest because an extremely dry year caused the lake level to
drop 20 ft.
          The heavy use-trend will continue and the proposed
sewer system will be an added convenience for visitors.  The
community will be better able to accommodate a larger permanent
and seasonally-transient population, allowing more people to
take advantage of Lakeview's recreational opportunities.
Without the project, the potential problems of septic systems
will, in the long term, detract from the attractiveness of the
area.
          4.    Additional Community Services
          Lakeview officials will  have to evaluate the need
for additional community facilities, services,  and programs to
properly handle the expected increased growth with the project
beyond 1995.   The Lakeview-Midway Water Association will
require storage in the Lakeview area as well  as enlarged mains
prior to 1995.  Solid waste handling and landfill  facilities
appear adequate.
     c.  Economic Effects
          At least part of the salaries of those operating the
system can be expected to be returned to the community through
spending for goods and services since these employees can be
expected to come from the community.   The other long-term
economic effect will not accrue to the community or its
inhabitants since these involve purchasing maintenance chemicals
and supplies not available in Lakeview.
          Lakeview1s economy is primarily geared to recrea-
tional activities associated with the lake.   Consequently,  the
small shops,  motels, and boat facilities will  grow and prosper

                            63

-------
                              Exhibit 21
          Recreational  Visitors at Lakeview Area Facilities
          (Source:   Little Rock District Corps of Engineers)

                  1972         1973      1974      1975      1976      1977

Lakeview        315,325     275,133   248,443    304,091     213,978   276,004
Dam Area      1,185,593     771,452   885,180  1,052,350     727,802   969,809Est.
Bull Shoals     136,573     141,552   143,502    137,439      96,548   110,981
STATE TOTAL   3,939,654   3,066,286 3,695,340  4,385,656   3,885,447

-------
as the community grows and additional leisure time is directed
toward water-related activities.  Area residents will therefore,
have additional employment opportunities and the young and
elderly will have seasonal employment.  Such effects attributable
to the project will occur beyond 1995.

     d.   Proposed New Development                                   Rev'd*
          The recently proposed development of 722 acres of
land south of Lakeview has potentially significant effects on the
community and the proposed wastewater system.   Land use would
be changed from agricultural to residential.  The planned
development of 1200 dwelling units would increase the area's
population by 2400 people or more, of which the majority
would be elderly.  There would be a need to expand commercial
establishments to service the population and about 200 jobs
would be created.  Additional utilities, police, health, and
other services would be needed.   Satisfactory wastewater
treatment facilities would be required and connection to the
proposed Lakeview system would be a likely alternative.
Appropriate cost sharing and provisions for plant expansion
would be needed.   Recreational use of the White River and
Bull Shoals Lake would increase.
          The proposed wastewater system will  also effect
the new development area which includes the treatment plant
site.  Land would be required for the plant site including
land for expansion if the new development is served by the
Lakeview system.   A buffer zone would be needed between the
treatment plant and residential  areas.  Odor should not be
a problem unless there is equipment malfunction as discussed
in Section 5.5.2.  The westerly component of the prevailing
winds will help provide air circulation away from the proposed
new real estate development.

* Revised from Draft; see Richard A.  Dean comments of August 25, 1978.

                            64

-------
5.5  AIR AND SOUND QUALITY
5.5.1  Effects of Construction on Air and Sound Quality
          Quiet, residential areas of Lakeview can be expected
to have low noise levels of about 40 to 50 decibels (dB).
Disruptive noise from construction will be a primary short-term
adverse impact.  Noise will be generated by motorized trenching
equipment, blasting, and the excavation and erection equipment
at the treatment plant site.  The contractor will be required
to have proper mufflers on all construction equipment.   The
equipment required for this project such as backhoes, tractors,
compressors, jack hammers, and drills typically generate noise
in the range of 80-95 dB at a 50-ft distance (EPA, 1976b).
          Much of the project area will be subject to blasting.
Most of the blasting is anticipated during construction of
lines on the steeper hillsides.   Relatively little blasting
should be required on the Lakeview plateau, with minimal
blasting at the treatment plant and other river bottom sites.
          Rock blasting at shallow depths is not overly irritating
or disturbing  if it is properly controlled and executed by
persons thoroughly experienced in this line of work, residents
are properly notified, and the blasting is done at infrequent
intervals and  during hours compatible with the community
lifestyle.  Shielding and padding will be used to minimize the
noise effects  from blasting, and all construction will  be
during normal working hours so as not to interfere with the
usual "quiet hours."  Warnings will be given to residents
before each detonation, and all  blasting will be done in
accordance with accepted safety procedures.
          The  primary short-term adverse air pollution effects
include emissions from construction vehicles and dust associated
with the excavation work and traffic.  Since the number of
                            65

-------
construction vehicles will be small, emissions will be negli-
gible on an area basis.  Minor local annoyance from fumes and
odors might occur during periods when air circulation is poor.
Nuisance dust conditions near residential areas and thorough-
fares will be controlled by spraying with water as well  as
proper mulching and reseeding.  Neither the problem nor the
control measures should be too difficult if construction
proceeds in a localized step-by-step basis.
5.5.2  Effects of Operation on Air and Sound Quality
          Although the various pump stations will  be located
within 100 to 200 ft of residences and commercial  establishments,
noise from these facilities will  not be objectionable because
of the small pump sizes and provision of proper enclosures or
installation below ground.  Noise levels of about 70 dB  can be
expected from the pumps, and an enclosure will reduce this
level to approximately 30 dB or the equivalent of a whisper.
Noise-generating equipment at the treatment plant site on the
White River will be similarly contained.
          Since prevailing winds  are from the south and  southwest,
major odors indicating a malfunction of the treatment plant
could conceivably be noticed at residences and business  about
a mile north.   Reliability features and proper operation will
minimize the chance of such occurrence, however.   Odors  at the
pump stations will cause little problem if the wastes are
transported quickly to the treatment plant before  anaerobic,
odor-causing conditions can develop.  Proper design of the
pump stations and other system components is essential,  and
the small size of Lakeview will aid in avoiding odor problems.
                            66

-------
5.6  ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORY
5.6.1  Effects of Construction on Archeology and History
          The National Register of Historic Places lists no
historic sites in the project area, and the State Historic
Preservation Program indicates no property of architectural or
historical significance will be affected by construction of
the proposed project (See Appendix B, p. B-l).
          A preliminary survey by the Arkansas Archeological
Survey found a large archeological site in the White River
valley at the proposed treatment plant location.   Outside of
the valley bottom, no findings were made along proposed sewer
lines, which are generally located in disturbed residential
and street areas.  Further archeological testing and excavation
conducted in the valley bottom by the Arkansas Archeological
Survey revealed that significant archeological resources are
located at the proposed treatment plant site (see Appendix B).
These resources would be adversely impacted by the construction
of this facility.  One site (3BA66a) is considered to be
eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.  The archeological survey indicates that two major
concentrations of cultural materials, designated as sites
3BA66a and 3BA66b, are present in the valley.   Site 3BA66a, an
unusually large site for the area, was occupied from early
Archaic to Woodland times, and has relatively deep deposits
(at least one meter), which are undisturbed below the shallow
plowzone.  This site would be severely damaged by the
construction of the treatment plant at its proposed location.
3BA66b is a large Mississippian site which has potential
importance, but would not be directly impacted by the proposed
project.
                            67

-------
          Mitigative measures incorporated to alleviate adverse
impact to these sites will include a Facility Plan addendum
moving the proposed treatment plant location to the west so
the eastern boundary coincides with test pit XU3.  The Archeological
Survey will be notified when construction of the outfall line
and Interceptor A has been scheduled and construction personnel
will be alerted to be looking for evidence of prehistoric
occupation, i.e., stone tools, bone, and pottery shards in
construction areas.   Should any resources be encountered, work
will be halted and the Arkansas Archeological Survey will be
notified immediately so that provisions are made for appropriate
data recovery.
          The Federal Advisory Council  on Historic Preservation
has been informed of these findings so that they may comment
in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act as
amended.   The Advisory Council will be allowed to comment
according to its procedures (36 CFR 800) if any additional
resources are encountered during construction.
5.6.2  Effects of Operation on Archeology and History
          There will be no effects on archeology and history from
operation of the project.
                            68

-------

-------
                       6.  COORDINATION

6.1  COORDINATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
          Several public meetings and a July 22, 1976 public
hearing were held during the planning stages of the proposed
project.   Federal, state, and local agencies, and interested
individuals and groups were contacted for information and
views during the EIS preparation.  Questions and concerns
expressed included the suitability of on-site disposal
alternatives; cost and economic effects; secondary effects
upon growth and development; projected growth and wastewater
flow estimates; and whether several jurisdictions outside the
incorporated Lakeview area will participate.
          A report by the Ad Hoc Committee for EIS Input led
by Messrs.  R. E. Lee, W.  McElroy, and Dr.  A. W.  Weitkamp
discussed the above and other concerns in detail, and Committee
members and other interested parties were consulted during the
EIS information gathering period.

6.2  CORRESPONDENCE DURING DRAFT EIS PREPARATION
          The following is a list of correspondence on project
problems and issues which is included as Appendix A.

          Arkansas Department of Pollution Control  and Ecology
          comments of October 20, 1976 on the Lakeview Facility
          Plan; response of November 16, 1976 as Facility Plan
          Addendum #1; and December 9, 1976 letter of the
          ADPCE requiring dechlorination.

          Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism January 25, 1977
          letter concerning Bull Shoals State Park participation
          in the system.
                            69

-------
         Arkansas  Game  and  Fish  Commission  October  4,  1977
         letter  concerning  thermal  effects  of  the proposed
         discharge on the White  River  trout fishery.

         Dr.  A.  W.  Weitkamp's  October  12, 1977 letter  concerning
         per-capita water use.

         Dr.  A.  W.  Weitkamp's  October  24, 1977 letter  concerning
         control  of population density.

         Engineering Services, Inc.  October 26,  1977 letter
         concerning costs of serving Bull Shoals State Park
         and  the Lakeview Recreation Area.

         U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers  November 7, 1977 letter
         concerning Lakeview Recreation  Area participation in
         the  system.

         Engineering Services, Inc.  December 1,  1977 letter
         concerning user charges and costs  for connecting
         to the  Town of Bull Shoals system.

         Engineering Services, Inc.  January 10,  1978 letter
         concerning project costs clarification.

         Arkansas Archeological  Survey - 4  letters

6.3  REVIEW PROCESS AND  PREPARATION OF  FINAL EIS
         The Draft EIS  was  distributed to Federal,  State, and
local agencies, and interested  individuals for  review and comment.
A public hearing  on the  Draft  EIS was held on August 21,  1978,  in
Lakeview.   Comments supporting  and opposing  the project were
about evenly divided.  The major  concerns of those opposing
                            70

-------
or questioning the project were project justification, costs
and economic impacts, and protection of trout.  At the request
of Mr. R. E. Lee and Dr. A. W. Weitkamp, a meeting to further
discuss their concerns was held at EPA Region 6 offices on
September 18 and 19.   Comments received have been reviewed and
evaluated and incorporated into the Final EIS as appropriate.
Comments and EPA's responses are provided in this section in
the following order:

          Comment From                            Date

U.S.  Department of Agriculture                    7-20-78
U.S.  Department of Energy                         8-3-78
U.S.  Department of Defense                        8-4-78
U.S.  Department of Health, Education,
  and Welfare                                     8-17-78
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation         8-22-78
U.S.  Department of Interior                       8-30-78
U.S.  Department of Commerce                       9-21-78
Arkansas Archeological Survey                     8-8-78
Arkansas State Clearinghouse                      10-2-78
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
  and Ecology                                     9-12-78
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission                 9-21-78
Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation
  Commission                                      9-28-78
Arkansas Department of Health                     10-13-78
  (also letter requesting comments)
Petition                                          8-18-78
L. K. Donoho                                      8-21-78
  (White River Fly Fishers)
                            71

-------
          Comment From                            Date

R.  E.  Lee                                         8-21-78
A.  W.  Weitkamp                                    8-21-78
                                                  8-25-78
H.  C.  Barnes                                      8-25-78
Richard A. Dean                                   8-25-78
Gaston's White River Resort                       8-26-78
  (Jim Gaston)
Harold and Martha Hoeffner                        8-26-78
John V. Gaff                                      8-26-78
Michael A. and Caron R. Davis                     8-28-78
Evans Realty                                      8-28-78
  (Larry Evans)
William H. Guppy P.E.                             8-28-78
  (White River Fly Fishers)             (with 8-21-78 comments)
Joseph Horvath                                    8-28-78
Elizabeth Klajnik                                 8-28-78
W.  G.  Kuschel                                     8-28-78
Frank P. Mueller                                  8-28-78
Mrs. Mary Seum                                    8-28-78
Mrs. Muckshaw                                     8-29-78
Nield J. Sanders                                  8-29-78
Caroline Drolet                                   8-30-78
Marvin L. Cole & Associates, Inc.                 9-1-78
  (Marvin L. Cole, P.E.)
Dale W. Sheets                                    9-1-78
Mr.  and Mrs. Emil Evers                           9-3-78
Dorothy A. Boyd                                   9-5-78
Richard B. Morris                                 9-5-78
The Randle Company                                9-5-78
  (Dick Randle)
Town of Lakeview
  (Claude W. Shonkweiler, Mayor)                  9-5-78
Engineering  Services,  Inc.                        11-17-78
                            72

-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT  OF AGRICULTURE

SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE	

 Post Office  Box  2323, Little Rock, Arkansas 72203
                                                       July 20, 1978
 Mr.  Clinton  B.  Spotts
 Regional  EIS Coordinator, EPA          .  •            .:
 Region 6
 1201 Elm  Street
 Dallas, Texas 75270                                    •  •

 Dear Mr.  Spotts:

 The  Draft Environmental  Impact Statement for Lakeview, Arkansas,
 Wastewater Treatment Facilities, was reviewed from an agricultural
 viewpoint.   Our comments are as follows:

      1.   Your use  of the soil survey information added a great
          deal to the document.

      2.   It  is  suggested that, an additional paragraph be added
          to  Paragraph  5.1.1, noting that the treatment plant's
          location  is underlain, to a small extent, by Healing
          silt loam, a  soil,  that is defined as a prime soil.
          The impact would be small, and the benefits of the
          wastewater treatment facility would far outweigh  the
          impact on this  prime agricultural land.

 I  appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document.

 Sincerely,
 5  cc:   Council  on  Environmental  Quality, Attention:  General Counsel,
          722  Jackson  Place,  N.W., Washington,  D.C.  20006
 5  cc:   Director, Office  of  Federal Activities  A-104, EPA,  Room  537,
          West Tower,  401 M  Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.  20460
 1  cc:   R.  M.  Davis, Administrator, SCS, Washington, D.C. 20013
 1  cc:   Office of the  Coordinator of  Environmental Quality  Activities,
          Office of the Secretary, USDA, Washington, D.C. 20013
 1  cc:   J.  Vernon Martin, Director, STSC, SCS,  Ft. Worth, Texas  76115

-------

-------
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                   LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

                        LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O3
        REPLY TO
        ATTENTION OF
SWLED-PV
                                                            4 August  1978
Ms. Adlene Harrison
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas  75270
Dear Ms. Harrison:

We have reviewed the draft Environmental Impact Statement for Lakeview,
Arkansas, Waste Water Treatment Facilities, as it relates to our area of
responsibility and offer the following comments.

    a.  Only one option of Corps participation in the facility is men-
tioned on page 29.  Another option is that the Corps could participate
as a customer and pay a monthly user fee.

    b.  It appears from the general layout map that a Section 10 and
Section 404 permit will be required for the outfall structure.  This
application should be submitted at least 6 months before construction
is begun but not more than 3 years before construction is to be completed.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Environmental Impact
Statement.
                                    Sincerely yours,
                                    ROBERT W. GLENN
                                    LTC, Corps of Engineers
                                    Deputy District Engineer
                         EPA RESPONSE


          This option has been added to Section 3.4e.
          This information is noted and The Corps of  Engineers'
responsibility for issuing the subject permits for  the  outfall
is recognized.

-------
           DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
                           PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICF:
                          CCNTI.R i ON m!>i,.A:.r: CONTHOI
                            ATI, AN Tf\. C.I. OWC. I A lIDj;!^
Mr.  Clinton Ji. Spot us
Regional  1C IS Coord i.nalor
Knv ironmental Pro Lee t ton  Agency
Region  6
.1.201  KJm  Street
Dallas,  Texas 75270

Ue.'i r  Mr .  Spo U.:s :
This  UK'J.S  is a we IJ.-wrJ, tten  report. that add reuses  all  o'.  the is SUCH ade-
quately .   The chosen coarse  o.i:  ac t ion L s Ins la 1 la t Ion  of.  a sewer sy s tein ,
provision  of secondary  treatment;  with lour aerated  lagoons , c hem Leal  pre-
eipltation ,  r.-i pid sand  t LitraLLoa , and ehlori, nation  with  dechlorination
(if needed) .  The treated effluent will be d i.sc harmed  to  the Wlii te Ki ver.
We concur  in th i r. course o E  action.

Tlie last jxiraj', r.i pli on i>;.tj',e .-i3 does .1.11 Produce 01:0 problem  without consider-
ing a  solution.  It points out  that: several 8- and  10-inch gravity col lection
lines  .ire  planned to closely  i:ol.low the "'	"'•:-"  ~ L~ °--''  f>K---'1- ' -'-	
;he  shoceline oi Bull  Shoals Uike, and
that sewe r-line leakage ii
           U'A atjreeii and  as  u'iscussect  in  Section b
pressure-type; joints will  :ii i n irn i/c potential  .'-.livpr
(rum ox Ii1trat i on.
It is common  t.o seek to provide  .sewe.raj;c witli adequate  treatment I:or rapidly
increasing  populat tons at existing water resources  projcc ts.  Typically ,
the burden  fall;-; on small units  of government: wlio are  ill-c(iuipped to  prov ide
the service.   It is recomaiendcd  ttiat all linture water  resource projects in-
clude provision In tiie plamu ng  and budget, fur adequate  sewerage. l:or the
increased  population 1 ike l.y  to be  induced.

Thank you  for  the. opportunity of reviewing this statement.   We would appre-
c i a to receiving a copy of the final when it is issued.

                                     Sincerely yours,
                                     William II. Koege, M.D.
                                     As s i s i:a n t: Su rj'.eon Coneral
                                     Director

-------
 Advisory Council  o..
 Historic  Preservation
 1522 K Street N.W.
 Washington, D.C. 20005
                                                                                                                           NO EPA RESPONSE  NECESSARY
                                     August 22, 1978
  Mr. Clinton B.  Spotts
  Environmental Protection Agency
  Region VI
  1201 Elm Street
  Dallas, Texas 75270

  Dear Mr. Spotts:

  This is in response to your request of July 12, 1978  for comments on the
  draft environmental statement (DBS) for the proposed  Wastewater Treatment
  Facilities, Lakeview,  Arkansas.   The Advisory Council has reviewed the
  DBS and notes that while cultural resource studies  to date indicate no
  properties included in or eligible for inclusion  in the  National Register
  of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed undertaking, addi-
  tional cultural resource studies will be undertaken prior to project
  implementation.  The Council also notes that the  Environmental Protection
  Agency recognized, its  responsibilities pursuant to  Section 106 of the
  National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f, as amended,
  90 Stat. 1320), should the above-cited cultural resource studies identify
  •previously unknown significant properties.

  Accordingly,  the Council looks forward to working with the EPA in accord-
  ance with  the "Procedures for the Protection of Historic and Cultural
  Properties"  (36 CFR Part 800) in the future, as appropriate.

  Should you have questions or require additional assistance, please contact
  Michael H. Bureman of  the Council staff at P. 0.  Box  25085, Denver,
  Colorado 80225, telephone number (303) 234-4946.  Your continued cooperation
  is appreciated.
                                     Sincerely your
                                     Louis'^. Wall
                                     Assistant Director,  Office of
                                       Review and Compliance,  Denver
The Council w art in-depe-ndcnt unit of the Executrvc Branca of the Federal Government charged by the Act of
October 11, 1966 to advise the President and Congress in the field, of Historic Preservation.

-------
      United States Department of the Interior
                OKKIOK, OKTHK SKCIIKTAKY
                     SOUTIIWKST KKC.ION
                     I'osTOKFK'K nox :;O,MS
               AI,UU()UKIM)UK, NKW MHXICO  K71(i:i
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
ER-78/646
                    AUG a u 1973
Mr. Clinton 13. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator
Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas  75270

Dear Mr. Spotts:

As requested we have reviewed the draft environmentaT state-
ment for Wastewater Treatment Facilities,  Lakeview,  Baxter
County, Arkansas.

We find that the statement adequately discusses the  environ-
mental  impacts of the project.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this statement.

                              Sincerely,
                                              ?/•
                            Raymond P.  Churan
                              Regional  Environmental  Officer

-------
September 21, 1978
                         UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
                         The Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology
                         Washington. D.C. 20230
                                    4335
                                                                                                       NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B.  Spotts
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas   75270

Dear Mr. Spotts:
The draft environmental impact statement for the
"Lakeview, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment Facilities,"
which accompanied  your letter of July 12, 1978, has
been received by the  Department of Commerce for review
and comment.

The Department of  Commerce has reviewed the draft
environmental statement and has no comment.

We are pleased to  have been offered the opportunity
to review this statement.
Sidney R. /Gallef
Deputy Assistanc^ecretary
for Environmental Affairs

-------
 3 THE
 IFUTURE
               ARKANSAS  ARCHEOLOGICAL  SURVEY
Oin-ctor • Charles R. McGimscy HI
Stale Archeolonist •  Hester A. Davis
                                                                                                                                                 NO EPA  RESPONSE  NECESSARY
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Kayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Phone: i«l-575-:tr>5fi
   TO:     Mr-  Clinton B-  Spotts,  HIS Coordinator
           Envi ronmenta1  Protect i on  Agency Region 6/
                                                     /'
   FROM:   lies tor  A. Davis,  Sl'.ate  Arciieol ogisr
         As reported i n  sect: ion r> -(i. 1  of Che  dra ft. HIS ,  an a rc.hoo J og i ca I  survey
   and  test oxcavjt ion  of  the proposed plant  si 1 e by  the Arkansas  Archeo 1 og i.ca 1
   Survey de terrni nod tl'ia t  the const rue t i on of  the I., rea timent p 1 a nt.  wou I d  adve r:',e 1. /
   a 1. f eel a 1 a rgo  a reheol og I ca I  s. i. t: e  1 oca tod  t. lie re .   in o rdo <" I. o ,-t vo i d the
   archeo 1 og i ca 1  site.,  the pi ant was  moved to  a not lie r  1 oca [. i on .   To i u r I. her
   mi t i.gate any  possible  adverse of fects of  tlie construct ion, it has been  agreed
   til at.  (:. he Arkansa s Archeo log i ca I  Su rvey w.i 1 I  be kept:  posted a:; to the wo rk
   schedu .1. c; a nd  not i tied  in the event tlia t pre.h i.s. t o r ic  a n: i I a<: L s a re exposed
   by the work -   7 f art, i facts are  uncovered , work will  be ha I  ted mil: i 1 the
   da |-;i  can be appropriate 1 y  recovered .
   HAD/Icm
   cc :   State Plann j ng and  Deve lopmcnt  C J ea r ivij.;huus<
         S L a t o 11 i s t o r i c P r e s e r v a t :i o n 0 f 1' i. c e r
         Engineer i.ng Services , Inc .
         Dan  Wolfman
                               ;r:,iry of Arkun%o:. i1. on tquol Opporlui^ity Employer

-------
                    STATE OF ARKANSAS
              DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SERVICES
                  SUITE 9OO • FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING
                       LITTLE ROCK 722O1
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
                       October 2,  1978
Mr. Clinton B.  Spotts
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1st International Building,  28th Floor
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas  75270
          Re
               EIS 0159 - Lakeview Draft
Dear Mr. Spotts:

The State Planning and Devlopment Clearinghouse is in receipt
of the above referenced environmental assessment pursuant to
the State of Arkansas Project Notification and Review System.

To carry out the review and comment process,  this office has
notified state agencies and interested organizations.  No
adverse comments were received from reviewing state agencies
concerning your environmental assessment.   Local issues brought
to our attention are also enclosed for your information and
transmittal to the respective funding agency.

The State Clearinghouse wishes to thank you for your cooperation
in the Project Notification and Review System.
                                   S incerely,
RMc/pt
Enclosures
        THE DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL. SGR
                            ICES IS AN EQU
                                     VL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER

-------
                                                                                                                                                              NO  EPA  RESPONSE  NECESSARY
TO:          .John  Sexton,  C']i:i i rm;iii  'A.-rhn i.c::i 1  K'-.-vi cw  Couiini tl.rc


FltOM :       Tru:;t;cri Hoi do r,  Ch i cf  Knv i ronmrnUi I  I're:; or vat, i on  1) I v [y. I on


DATK:       S<:pU:i:ilx:r ]:',  I 97S
Th i;".  Dcparl irn.:n (;  }i;.i:;  r\-v.i owed  t,h<:  :ibovc  cli-a f'l,  :--.!.a lament.  :inc!  wi-
}icr'chy concu r w,i. l:h  I'.I'ic:  i n f'or;n;i t.i or>  LIi:it, .i L  conL;i i n;;.   oo:ru: (.. Inn:
Mp.O  wt; :tppi'ovi.:cl  .1 M l.,t:f)  'I  C 1','in»', TdJ'  l.;ikc :v irw ;iru'!  inoix:  rx:<:<.:n 1,1 y
pi ;u-cd I.nUrv i t:w  on  l.'.Iic  iij--1) ori !.y .'1 i r; f.  for ;i  St.(,-j>  "I !' (Jt-.-sni1.,


TU/jb
                                                   STATE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
                                                        AND  CLEARINGHOUSE

-------
COMMISSIONERS

     GUY FENTER
     CHAIRMAN
     CHARLESTON

 OR, RALPH H. BOWERS
   VICE CHAIRMAN
     HARRISON
                                                           ANDREW H. HULSET, Director
Arkansas
  and Fish  Commission
 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
   September 21,  1978       :
                                                                                                         NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
        Mr.  Randy McNair, Director
        State Planning & Development  Clearinghouse
        900  First National Bldg.
        Little Rock, Arkansas  72201

        Dear Mr. McNair:

        I received your memorandum of September 15,  1978  and the
        attached Draft Environmental  Impact Statement for the Lake-
        view, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment Facility.

        I have reviewed the DEIS  and  it appears to reasonably
        describe the project and  the  environmental effects, which
        will be minimal.

                                 Very truly yours,
                                 David G. Criner,
                                 Administrative Assistant
        DGC:ac
                                           SEP22RECD
                                       SrATE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
                                          AND CLEARINGHOUSE

-------
                              MEMORANDUM

DEPARTMENT:  ARKANSAS SOIL S WATER CONSERVATION COMMISSION

TO:       Randy McNair. Director, State Clearinghouse  DATE:   September 28,  1978
FROM'    John P. SaJx1:c?Pf>7Diasciol^"Soil and Water Conservation Commission
                   /   / /  •tL-—
SUBJECT:  Draft EIS(-^ialteWew Wastewatcr Treatment Facilities
                                                                                                                      FPA KESPONSf
     Review of the captioned document reveals no features to which this agency
     need object.   In general,  this type of project will have only beneficial
     effects upon water quality in the area.

     The Draft EIS appears to fairly and accurately consider all effects of
     the proposed action.   However, construction of a sewage lagoon in an
     area underlain by limestone could result in extensive groundwatcr pollution;
     for this reason, extensive geologic investigations should be carried out to
     insure that no significant solution channels or sinkholes exist at the
     lagoon si te.
     JPS:JRY:JRS:cc
          tPA agrees that possible ground water pollution from
the lagoons should be prevented.  The  proposed  Lakeview plant
site is indicated to have favorable  geological  characteristics
with regard to lagoon construction and integrity.   I he lagoons
will also be  lined to prevent  leakage.   While existing infor-
mation does not indicate  the necessity of extensive geological
investigations at this  time, soil borings and associated
testing at the lagoon site will  be conducted during detailed
                                                SEP29RECD

                                          .srAfE PLANNING DEVELOPMENT
                                              AND CLEARINGHOUSE

-------
               ARKANSAS
               DEPARTMENT
               OF  HEALTH
BUREAU OF PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING
Donaghey Building, 13th Floor
Seventh and Main Streets
Little Rock,  Arkansas  72201
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
                                        October 13,  1978
Mr.. Roger N. Jungdaus,  P.E.
Sverdrup S Parcel and Associates,  Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri  63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
                                             Draft Environmental  Impact  Statement
                                             Lakeview,  Arkansas Wastewater and
                                             Collection System
Reference is made to your letter dated October 9,  1978, .setting forth another
variation of.on-site disposal system alternatives  utilizing septic  tank systems.

This office has reviewed that portion of the draft environmental impact state-
ment pertaining to on-site disposal systems and we concur with the  conclusions
that public health will be enhanced by the construction of the sanitary sewerage
system and the elimination of the existing septic  tank systems.

As pointed out in the environmental impact statement,  health hazards  from con-
taminated wells will be reduced and unsanitary effluent surfacing from malfunc-
tioning on-site disposal systems will be eliminated.   Also pointed  out in the
statement, contamination of individual wells by septic tank systems has been
indicated and continued development will increase  ground  water degradation.

In view of the fact that the suggested alternative of using dual absorption
fields will only improve the situation of surfacing sewage, the danger of under-
ground water contamination will continue.   And since  the  soil types in this area
are not conducive to sewage absorption, this office will  be unable  to consider
any alternate which would utilize soil absorption, and we highly recommend the
construction of the proposed sanitary sewerage system.

                                        Yours truly,
                                        T.  A.  Skinner,  P.E.
                                        Director and Chief Engineer
                                        Bureau of Public Health Engineering
TAS:jt
cc:  Ms, Adlene Harrison,"Regional Administrator
     Environmental Protection Agency

     Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
                                                            ENVIRONMENTAL DIV,

-------
                                     r.-
                                                                                                                                   NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
October (),  1978
A r ka n s;i s Ue.pa r tmeri t o £ llca 1 1. h
Bureau n f Pnhl i c  Hen 1 l.h Kng i neori ng
Donaghcy Building - 13th Floor
7th and Main  Streets
Little Rock,  Arkansas  72201
De a

Refe rence  :i :•;  made to the Draft Rnv i ronnicnta 1  Impact Statement  for the
proposed  Ui kevi.ew Arkansas wastowater  co I loci i on :ntd t reatinont  system.
                                                                 d i sposa.l
                                                                I d  provide
                                                                 h.-js f.-ii led.
                                                                cst  peri ods
                                                                unct. i on for
S in co i issuance  of  tin- Dra ft 1-11'S , anotlier  v;jr:i at. i on of on-.si t.
system a I tern at. i ves  has been  sup^este.d .   Tlii s  a 1 le. mat. i ve wo
a second absorpl :i on  I i.e.l d win- re  the  o r i p. i nal  ;ib.'-:o rpt i on ('i e I
By a 11. oc n a t i.ng  use of  the fit.'Ids and thus a 1.1 ow i. nj* po r i odi t:
o f  sovora I months  for each, t he  sys t..em  con I d  he expected t o
the J i fir of:  tho  dwe.lling.

Si nee 1 ot sizes  are  f. re<|iu-nt.Jy ,1 ess  than  one-ha ! f acre i n I,akcv i ew,  and
lli us may not provide su (' f i c:i ent  area for  a 1 termite  f.i elds,  .it  has  been
suggested that,  where needed, ne i ghboring vacant  lots be condemned and
ut.il ixed for the «';i 11 ornate absorpt i on  f ;i el d .   App'l y i nj> the  absorpt i on
f i old area spec i f icat i oris o f  "Rul OK  and Regu I at. ions Pertain j n^ t. o  Sewage
D.i sposa'l Systems arid 1 nst.a 1 lers , "  np to (' i.ve  surround i ng two  or  three
bedroom homes mi gJit  ut.il i xe a vacant, one- th i rd acre  I ot for their
aj ternate absorption f j el ds based  upon  typi ca'l  per col at i on  tests  i n  the
I-akevi.ew a rea .

In  evaluating the  Tea si b i .1. i ty of this approach i n. the Final Lake view
EIS, we would apprccj a to your comments at  your ear. 1 iest convenience.
P1 ease 1 (.'t me know i. f  you have any questions  concern i n;* this  matter.
S Incero.ly yours,

SVERDRUH a PARCEL  AND ASSOCIATES,  Inc.
Roger N. Jungclaus,  PI')

lice:   Mr. Paul  Bergstrom, I-1PA
    .^rfABx'tD-:- '/i/Rif7
      CK 5.r>97

KNJ/blj

-------
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY

-------

-------
/6, A,  OosJodo
                            WHITE RIVER  FLY  FISHERS
                                       P. O. BOX S02
                              MOUNTAIN HOME, ARKANSAS 72653
                '.iuestions for Lakeview Hearing's August 21,  1978

  1. '.Jhy was Chlorine and Dechlorination specified in this plant'- Trout  are very'sensitive
     to Chlorine.  The other two•sewage plants, Bull"Shoals and Cotter, use Ozone.
  2. Since you tell us that the effluent is clean and since there is  an out-flow temperature
     of about 67 degrees and  since the out-flow will be added to that from the Bull Shoals
     plant in approximately the sane area, why is it not best to put  the effluent into the
     lake so that it can be mixed with a lot of water and thus cooled to an  acceptable
     level for trout. If the  water is clean enough for the river why  is it not clean

     enough for the lake?
                         EPA RESPONSE

          The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5.   It is
emphasized that, if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to protect trout.   Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated.   Ozonation is a
promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics,  application,  and operation
of ozonation systems are currently in progress.   Implementation
of either process will protect the important trout fishery.
Because of new developments in these areas, final selection
of the process will not be determined until detailed Step 2
planning and design.  In either case, design and operation
will achieve strict conformance to both State and Federal
water quality standards.
          Effects of the White River and Bull Shoals Lake
discharge alternatives are discussed in Sections 3.4d and
5.2.4.   Discharge to Bull Shoals Lake was not selected because
of the need for expensive nutrient removal treatment, proximity
to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and nearby resi-
dential areas, discharge to high quality contact recreation
waters, and disadvantages in serving areas below the dam.  The
analysis of temperature effects on the White River quality was
based upon wastewater discharge at 95°F.

-------
             J'rTAL P-OT^TIOK  A^'CI E^A^n*: 0*  "315

    AU3UST 21,  1078,  LAKSVITiV,  ARKA/JAJ.

3ood evening, ladies  and  gentlemen... .my  narrar is  Robert  •;.  Lee  and I am
a reoident of Lake view, 'of ore  I .jet  into  iny  remarks,  I would like to
express my appreciation, to so many  of you  vrho have encouraged us to
continue our probo  of the proposed  sewer  project.  Without your financial
and moral assistance,  we  mi^ht  have been  reluctant to proceed.

I would like to  cover several subjects  in this  presentation,  among which
       "1. A ahort  history of Lakeview, and how the politicians decided
           on the system.
        2. Vho  stands to  profit  from the  system.
        3. ,/ho will pay for  it,  and how much, and how wesw-the
           population figures juggled to  pull the wool,over your eyes.
        4. Is thero really a  pollution  problem  uow.—what will it be
           if the sower system  is built.
        5. Affect on  the  '.Thito  Hiver.... the fishing.... the tourism.

How ri.jht at the outset let me  say  that it appears that  the proponents
of the sewer system are obligated to  establish  and sustain four piinto:
POPULATION	POLLUTION	.UTSX ?LO'.if	AfilLITY TiJ PAT	
please keep  them in mind.

1. At a town council  meeting  on  ifovemuer  3,137fi,  ^r.  "iarl .Thipple, the  town
   recorde*  , told  the audionce  that  the  town was incorporated in 1373
   because of the threat  presented  by a. concrete  plant in the area. It  was
   felt that by  incorporating,  restrictions could je imposed that would
   prohibit  the  erection  o£  similar plants that would oe  objectionable  to
   the town  residents.  {  I wonder if sewer plants fall in that  category)
   The town was  incorporated  in  JTovenmer  1373, • and the first council meeting
   •vao hold  on May  13,  1374.  Other  than the council members,  thero were two
   XIKflGC persons present: Robert Selzer from the  torthweot Arkansas Devolopmont
   District, and the  late Torreat Scott,  a local  developer.

   At the second town council moetin'j,  July 3,  1Q74,  ilayor ^honkwiler had,
   as hi3 juost  speaker a Charloo 31^ter,  who supposedly  was an enf^iineer.
   Slater informed  tho Council  that the .jtato of  .Vrkansaa ha^| *?3 million
   dollars to ?ive  tiway for  oewer systems, and  advised the council how  to
   £o about  filing  an application.   Apparently  the cauncil was  very
   interested in sewers and  things  moved  rapidly  in tho  direction of the
   application proceeding.

   Jubse^ucntlJ, several  of  the  council ntemoers visited  plant sites and,
   X^KKM spoke with officials and engineers re^ardin^ past performances.
   Several engineers  attended the following council meetings trying to  soil
   their services,  finally, the  moment  of decision was upon the council	
   which engineering  firm should oe  chosen...the  field \vas narrowed to  faur
   by council,vote  
-------
 *ow,  ladies and gentlemen,  a funny thing happened....the council decided it
 didn't  want you and me to know how the engineering firm was to be selected	
 	-30-7151 TOOK A S^CJHT 3ALLOT	A SSCR'ST. JALLCT. . .... A PRIVILY? IfOT
 A770?.!r*D.'-TH3 IHTTSD STATES 'SSI-ATS	
 Although most of the engineering firms were within 20 miles of so of Lakeview,
 a  firm  in Springdale,  AS, Sngineering Services,  Inc.  won the vo««. This firm
 filed articles of incorporation on September 21,  1971, and has as it's president,
 Max Hall,  and as vice  president,  Jerry Martin who,  just-prior to his employment
 with  ?3I,  was with the Arkansas Dept of tealth.

 ISd like to talk about the application now	A3 many of you know, I have
 repeatedly asked questions  at council meetings... .and in most instances,  the
 Mayor's reply has been to entertain a motion to  close the meeting. As an
 illustration:   a few moutho ago I asked the Mayor about the filing of the
 application....I asked,"Did you prepare this application by yourself, did
 someone help  you to prepare it,  or was it already prepared by soneone else
 for your signature????"   The Mayor's only reply was to close the meeting.5ow,
 I  think the  questian should be  answered for the following reasons	The
 application is  dated September  15,  1975....then^f  there are  two letters...one
 from  the Tforthwest  Arkansas Economic Development  Distriot and  one from  the
 '.rkansas Cept of  Local  Services. ...the  first  dated September 29,  1975 and
 the second dated  September  22,  1975.  The  town council in it's  resolution  ,*8
 authorized^  the  mayor  to  "make  applicationfor a  jrant under PL 92-503...this
 resolution is dated September 30,  1975	That was my/i next question,  Sir.
 Mayor....just how one  goes  about  filing an application some 15 days before
 authorization.   Perhaps some of the other council memoers could tell us i£
 they  were all aware if this descrepancy.   —^"~ C*~G*-&. f
 I  have  copies of the application and the resolution in my files for anyone
 who would like  to see  them<,

 I'd like to  get on with other things and ask, "',1ha stands to profit from the
 building of  the system...either directly or indirectly ?"
 I  have  been  informed that at an early meeting in  ^dgewood  'ay, the engineer
 was asked  liy  a  l^elen Oamron,  if the sewer would enhance the value of empty
 lots....the reply was  affirmative in the  estimated amount of 3 1,300 per  lot.
 In reviewing  the  ^IS report I found that  there are 555 lots in the platted
 subdivisions  ig Lakeview	so I  started counting....and found lots and  lots.
 I found in the  subdivisions controlled by two of  the  council members.... there
 is 83i  percent  of the  available platted lots	In the  Shonkwiler division
 17« lots or 51.3  per cent,  and  Chick's  division with  45 lots or 12.2 per  cent.
 The ^IS  report  shows on page  13, that  typical 1/3 acre platted lot in the
 Lakeview area is  about »  7,000.

 How, my  friends,  don't be taken in  by  the  old realestate  salesman's pitch
 that this project will increase the value  of  your property....so  what...the
 lot next door , the  ond down  the  street would probably  increase  in value  ,too.
The only place it would really matter  is  in the tax assessor's office.


 7fho will pay  for. the system... .how  .much.... and how were  the population
 figures  juggled to pull Jhe wool  over  our eyes.
 The answer to','Who will pay?"  is sitting in the audience  tonight,  in every •
 chair.
 Tou see, Ladies  ang gentlemen,  the  proponents of  the  system are in a bind.....
 they have  to  show a population  figure....a substantial figure  that would
 indicate a lot  of people  using  ATO  paying the sewer charges.  Aa an example:

 The TI3 shows population  figures  for:

-------
Lakeview             530
M.jewood ^ay         170
Leisure Tills South  110
                     310
The population figures also include:
Lakeview Use  '.rea    135
»ull Jhoals Jt.Pfc.   ?50
                     •445
In addition someone has added:
                                  /
  Riverside Trailer pic.  25
  and "Other"            70
                       540
  There is no indication who  the  "Other:!1* are,  nor  is  there  any  explaination
  to why the trailer park residents were not  counted previously	3ut  those
  two entries ICtHKK bring the total of the use  areas and  trailer park area
  to SZ 540....or a population, exceeding that projected for  Lakeview.
  It appears that thoye  310 ( if  there aro that many)will  DO paying  for  tho
  sewer. The Corpo of Sn^ineers refuse to make  any  commitment  other  than to
  cay,"Vrtion a decision to construct the Lakeview system and  the  cost  Tor our
  uco of the system is determined, we will evaluate our priority needs with
  regard to funds and make a  decision concerning connection  to the  system."

  The *ull Shoals State  Park  saysT"Tou may knoxv that we have recently
  completed a sewer at *,ull Shoals and wo will  have to study the situation
  further and ^et cost quotations from the City of  Lakeview  before v/e make
  a firm commitment for  Tull  ohoals to tie into the system." According to
  a bulletin issued by the Arkansas Dept, of Pollution Control fc "^colo^y,
  *ull  Shoals Jtate Park was issued a permit  to operate, aa  shown in  tho  \pril
  1378  release.

  Tho proposed cost for  servicing the SB two locations is estimated tn be
  *  170,500,  including * 5000 in intoreatduring construction,  for service
  lines,  treatment plant, engineering,  construction observation,  le^al and
__aii£iini3trative costs,  and land ri,£ht  of wuy.             _. -—	

  Tou rememjer that I  mentioned how critical the flow factor is  to the project,
  well,  the  "IIS  shows  an  estimate for the CO1! waste water flow of 23,000 .jala.
  per day. now,  ata rate  of 1.30 per thousand it comes to 23.30 per day,  337.00
  per month  or  10,764  per yeacr,  JtS and  guess  who will  have to make that up??
  If  v;e  use  the  same proportinate flow  for  the 'ull jhoals Jtate Park at  the
  250 population equivalent  that  campground  would  evade charges of 43.40 per day
  1432 per month or  17,784  per year	added together the CC2 and 3LZJP total
  comes  to 23,5-43 dollars. ICecp your  chock-bock  handy  while you're ^uegsin*
 who in going to pay.

 Inasmuch as the COS and 3SCP had an option  to  join or net to join ( isn't
 it  strange that you and I haven't  the same  choice??)  and they have not  made
 a decision, I3m in favor of  deleting that portion of  the application. I'm
  sure that the  COT and "53GP have  sufficient  funds  available  to solve any
 problems they  may encounter.
  As  you can see,  population and  users are essential to the plan....they  havo
  to  show people  usin^ the system	then someone/  came  up  with u real  cute
  idea.... they decided to count motel rooms...they  counted each room, 155 of
 them in 14 motels...with 2 persons per  room  per day,  each usia^ SO jjals of
 water per day.  And then they want  to count  each room  au  bcin-j occupied  355
 days per year.
                                                                                                                  EPA RESPONSE


                                                                                                   The citizens of Lakeview would not. pay the cost for
                                                                                         serving the Bull Shoals State Park and Corps of Engineers
                                                                                         Lakeview Recreation Area.   Eacli would be required to pay its
                                                                                         share of costs based on flow.   The options available for
                                                                                         payment by the Corps of Engineers are discussed in Section
                                                                                         3.4e. According to EPA requirements, Federal facilities should
                                                                                         pay their Step 2 and Step 3 capital costs and EPA will fund
                                                                                         /5% of remaining project cost with the local share being 25%.
                                                                                                   Since neither' the Corps of Engineers or Bull Shoals
                                                                                         State Park have been ruled out as possible users of the proposed
                                                                                         system,  it is appropriate to include them at this stage.   If
                                                                                         they do not participate,  the monthly user costs for residents
                                                                                         in Lakeview will be higher as  discussed in Section 3.4e.

-------
 ?or those of us whu live here year'round, we know better than that....we recall
 the past two or three winters, when there wasn't iSSXf anything  in  the parking
 stalls of the motels but piles of snow.  I think the campgrounds were a  bit  chilly
 during those days too.   I'm sure if you ask any motel  owner in town his
 occupancy rate, you'd find him delighted to have a stable 35 per cent or
 128 full days per year.

 As long as we're talking about who's going to pay...let's examine  the information
 shown on page 53 of the 3IS. This shows that SO percent of the  Lakeview faralies
 have an income in excess of 8,000 dollars per year. How, I don't know who made
 that survey or how it was made, but I can tell Jou that if he knocked on my door
 and a few others I know of,  hewould have gotten answers a lot closer to the other
 eucjof the scale. A fecent newspaper article showed the per capita income of
 Lakeview residents as 1128 dollars.

 May we talk about an endangered species for a moment??? I'm speaking of the low
 income familied,  the advanced aged,and the widows and widowers among us....they
 are an endangered species and deserve all the protection we can give them.
 The local Social Security office  informs me that a widow,  at age «5, whose
 spouse was  covered by minimum SS  benefits,  receives a monthly check of 12}.30
 and,if her  gross income is under  1500 per year,  she in eligible for supplemental
 benefits bringing her up to  189.40 per month.

 At a meeting a few montho ago I expressed concern over a widowfs situation
 where she would be hard pressed to pay the  normal obligations,  and then face
 a  sewer bill of 15 to 20 dollars...and how would she pay for the piping for the
 sewer hook-up....a voice from the rear of the room said, "'.'/ell,  she can always
 mortgage the equity she has  in the house, andrnpay it off later." _  //t;	  ';'

 I  local resident told me that, at  the present time, he is receiving a pension that
 is  combined  with Social Security, and  he and his wife  get  along and pay their
 bills	In the  event  of his death  the pension  stops,  and his  «d£e would be left
 with  survivors  benefits  only...his final words were,vXIf  that happens,  there  is no
 way she  could hold on to  the  house and pay  any new bills too."  T'know friends,
 that last sentence  applies to my  house  ISSX   also.
 As  long  as we're  talking  aoout  money....Exhibit  13  in  the  115 indicated  that  the
 town will be  required to  repay  on it's  basic  loan,  37,-497  per year,  and  collect
 annual  operational  and maintenance costs of 48,197,  or a total for  the year  of
 84,198	according  to the exhibit  there are 777 units  going to pay that amount,
 but it sure  doesn't tell  us what  a unit  is	on page 34  it says,  'SXiOiHX  'the
 unit count is basedon the number  of  residential and  commercial structures in
 1977, and those anticipated for 1995 for the  town plus the area  outside  the  town
 limits  to be  served by  the project (including an equivalent  for  3S3P and the
 Lakeview Secreation area.)
 Page 5  of the ?IS  tells us that there are 375 septic systems in  the project  area,

 based upon the number of  homes  and commercial establishments. This  375 figure.
 has been used throughout  the  project bJB  the engineers	let's use  it and see
what the costs might  be.  X3XS  84,197  divided by 375  comes  out  pretty close
 to  225  dollars a year,  or roughly 13.75 per month	and  that's assuming that
 the original cost  estimate was  correct.   There is  a little item 'o.i  page  34,  which
 says  "CCS?  I»C?.^A37!:  CAT It  ^XF^Cra! • 33CAU3*! C?  IT7LA.TIOX"
                         EPA RESPONSE


          To avoid overloading the plant during peak use
periods, it is appropriate and necessary to design the treatment
facilities to handle seasonal  tourists loadings.
          The $8,000 family income figure was  derived from a
resident survey conducted by the Northwest Arkansas Economic
Development District, Inc.  in 1975.   The 1974  per capita
income for Lakeview of $1,128 from the 1977 report "Population
and Income" U.S.  Department of Commerce, was based on estimates
derived from 1970 statistics broken down on a  county-wide
basis.  Such localized figures are very uncertain for an area
not incorporated until 1974.   Since the $8,000 family income
figure is the most recent and was obtained from local residents,
it is felt to be a reliable indicator of real  family income.
As recognized in Section 5.4.3.1c, some of those families with
fixed incomes below $5,000 and $3,000 per year (22% and 3%,
respectively) will have financial difficulty in paying the
monthly charge.
          The unit count was used to proportion reasonable
charges based on wastewater contribution.   The 375 figure is
not an appropriate figure to use for the user  charge analysis
since it does not proportionally allocate costs for serving
multi-unit establishments,  such as motels,  trailer courts,  the
Bull  Shoals State Park,  and the Corps of Engineers Lakeview
Recreation Area.
           The effect of inflation  is  included  in  the  revised
 cost estimates of Chapter 4.

-------
ly"
  *ow aaout the Town ---- where io the money coming from  for  it '3  share  of the
  project?????
  The town has  about i,ooo on hand just now ..... on just  the  construction  phase
  of  the  project the minimum city portion ia shown as 493, 000. . -plus  land costs
  of  25,030,  plus <61, 000 in interest during construction.   In  a  memorandum  for
  record,  enjincgj  Ro/^er Jurvjclaus noted,"', farmers •lome  'vdmistration  loan for
  the  local share the  Lakoview Project ia likely." 5o doesn't  tell  us  who is"Like
  to  pay  it back.

  There ia alao a matter of cost overruns, job change orders,  open-end contracts
  which will require the town to/iascumo all cJjar^en over and above  the bid prices.
  Ivory time a  job  chaaje order is made someone sets paid ____
  ixa
  *ow about the  alternatives ..... The 21.} spends °i pa/res on  alternate  systems,
  and  16  on the  environmental impact otf Che  black-jack oak  tree natrt plankton
 and  others.                                                    '
 Although  the alternatives  are  shown,  it  lacks detailed information on  costs
 and  installation.   It indicates, in part, that land for up^radin,^ systems  could
 cost 7,000 for  a 1/3 acre  lot.    ./hat has  happened to  eminent domain, and  the
 condemnation of property for municipal use. Pai^e  5»  of the 1EIJ says,  "the
 necessary land will be acquired by  the eminent  domain  process" ( "hat's le^al
 talk -which means you v;on't  jet as much for the property a::i you thought) One
 mirht ask why  tho  process is exercised for/ the treatment  plant project, yet
 is not applied XB  the upgrading systems scheme.
Tho  en,jine';ro from St. Louis had a few OKI around  the area,  nakia;j surveys
                                                            ,       ;
                                           Twelve wells  -were  sampled,  and analysis
   \v      e
accurate  appraisal  of the situation.
Effect  on the  ;/hite aiver	the Fishing. — the 1'ourism.
	             '                                    o/ iraiilc, hot.. ,
              jurisdiction in this ,:>iva.   A sul>si..a!;:.i,il
              takeviow and surr-oundin;] areas rely on incli.
              wells  and I.PA is  concerned  about their pr.;
              the  problem  will  not solve  it or reduce ij;o

                       El'A does not believe tho  addition
              tor a  survey of each of  the 375  on-si to sy.:. v
              Ihere  is  sufficient  information  regarding  on-r. it.e  systems'
             performance,  pollution,  and related health problems as discussed
              in Sections ?.. I and 2.2,

-------
  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  please  allow me  a few moments to look into, the crystal ball
  and  let me  tell you what  I  think will  happen if • the sewer plant is .installed:

  '. field day for the land  speculators,  including multi-family and condominiums.
 The SIS says  "Vfhile a  variety of  land  use  categories  can  be moee densly  develop-ed
 the greatest  effect is expected in the  residential  housing market."  and  ."Local
 commercial activity will  eventually become  more diversified and serve not  only
 a recreation-BXlQHajjjI oriented population, but also  a  larger number of permanent
 residents."! guess if we  help out  the land  speculators, we  might just as well
 help the merchants.

 Th?  town will have to borrow large sums of  money.
 the gemrrated revenues will not be able to  sustain  payment  of the obligations,
 and someone will suggest  a Sewer Improvement District, , "to  have  those vacant lot
 owners pay their share of the costs". .. .but rememoer,  the  sewer  lines jo to where
 the houses are. This is exactly what the people in  ."Sull Shoals  thought,  but found
 that  a large portion of the lots are £K not where the  sewer  lines run, and therefore,
 not  subject  to tax by the  SID.  After the SID is formed ,  and the people find out
 what  is  going on,  they complain that the monthly charges are too much for their
 pocketbooks. . . . the engineer comes up witljr a marvelous solution. . ."More customers
 makes the rate lower",  and at  that time the excuse will be, "we  thought Lafceview
 would grow faster".  "Our original estimate  of growth was wrong". I can tell you
 right  now what L think  the -oujjimiiitJite, plans are.... I was standing by  the  table
 in hardy's last March when Max Hall was showing  a  map  to Steve 3urkett,of 2Pi ,
 and told him how easy it would be  to run a  main  line along Hte 173 to Midway.  I
 think  this opens a new  door  to us,  and  lets us see perhaps the real reason why
 the Lakeview plant was  designed to  handle 300,000  gallons  per day.

 In closing let  me say that our group  is  prepared to  go forward with this  matter
until  i  complete and proper  surveys are  made and enough evidence gathered that
will assure the residents  of this  community  the  best value for their  mone#.


.tad one  more thing, Of  late  I have  been  criticized for harrassing local politicians  —
and if what I  have done constitutes harrassment, then  I willingly wear  the  shoes,
and I  will continu* to wear  those  shoes  each time  I  seek SK a truthful  answer to
an honest  question.  I respect each persons  right  to expression. . .whether it be
pro or con. I  offer you the right to  do  just that, but  in  return,  I expect  the
same from you.
                         EPA RESPONSE


          Secondary impacts on development are discussed in
Section 5.4.3.2. -
          The collection system  and  treatment  plant  are  not
designed to serve Midway.
           ASD
                             THAT'S 3OT IT LOOKS 7ROM AlfOTSSS POUT  OF VI3J.

-------
                                              P. I
                                                 	
	  ,J-E-4*  ^^^y'.T^ ^ A^gV .^   ;	


            o? jL3^^-i.f.^La^>^r_.^-a/j^:if-^. _
-------
                                                                                      ue.
	-T"
                     ^O^-<±^-57l^Z, _    •=£&.
    sCt^^yL*^ 0~4-4/.*.
-------
                _^>-^ (_>O^vix<—/ c'/ £-4  LsU .  (^\J-X-**--iLJr'T->^-s*^*~~\~l0
                PU3LIC JSASIITG -J.l DRA^T EIS,   URUst 21, £978
        Ladies  and ;»«f on the cost-effectiveness of
 alternatives..;uEds>.   I have  in my possession,  six important
 documents that v.-crc conspicuously absent from the Library 2nd
 from the M & M grocery.
        TT-ip fir-nt rinrmrr;pnti "1=:  ,T MpninT-i.nrii:i:i  from hhp Dffi^p nf*
                       LPA RESPONSE

         While  there has been no documented ur reported
disease outbreak in the Lakeview area attributable to  septic
tank  systems,  EPA does not agree that :,;i<:h outbreak is necessary
to demonstrate health or ground writer , .''. ,r;: ion problems resulting
from  septic tank systems use.  FPA ii.is i,:•',.,-: ined sutficient
evidence of ground water pollution anij potential health problems
through well sampling, survey of septic tank systems,  and
evaluation of the area geology, soils, and development charac-
teristics, as discussed in Sections 2.J.,  2.2, and 2.3.

-------
of snail  towns, and especially those with low incomes per house-
hold.
       He also pointed  out that -when Engineers design a Project
such as ours, they like to predict high population  growth rates
and high  water consumption.  The high  growth rate supports the
arugment  of "buy now  -  someone else will pay later."  The high
                                     needed
water use supports the  over-design/to  accomodate futmre land
development.
                  *.*. „_      ,       S°°& _.     and sons not so good.
        in the Draft BIS we have some/iaf onr-ation/   It states
over and  over that Lakeview is a very  fast-growing  community.
"Tot sal   The 1978 Special Census showed an embarassingly low
growth  rate - only 3^- persons in three years.  Two  years ago
the Engineers had predicted a growth  of ISO, which  the EPA had
lately  reduced to SO.  How. optimistic  can you be?   On water
consumption, the SPA  said people like  us  will use  about 75
                                                             figure
 gallons  per person per  day.  In Sdgewood Bay the
                             the
 is about 60 gallons.  But/Engineers  have-decided  to  design a
 treatment plant based on I'+O gallons per person per  day.  This
 is a clever way to increase the plant capacity beyond what SPA
 is permitted to fund.
        The second important document that was not made available
 is a I'lemoc.from James F. Kreissl of the USEPA office  of Research
 and Developmegjt.  His Memo is entitled "USEPA Response to Public
 Law 92-500, Relating to Hural Wastewatar Problems."   In it, he
 says:  "The concept of conventional sewers for smaller and
 sparsely developed communities is now being seriously challenged
 by both  Federal Grant Approving Authorities and  by .local:
 connunities who' must pay ezhorbitant user's costs for the
1 privelege" of being  sewered.1"  "Since the cost  can be 2  to V
                       EPA  RESPONSE

         The 1978 special  census data was not available for
inclusion of the Draft EIS, however, it has been incorporated
in the Final EIS in Section 5.4.la.   It is concluded that the
Draft EIS population projections for the Lakeview area are
still reasonable.
         Estimated present and future sewage flow of 100
gal/capita/day was used for treatment plant design.   The
preferred method of predicting flows is to use an analysis of
water use records.  Data for  the Edgewood Bay and Lakeview-Midway
water associations were considered, however, factors such as
the use of private wells, the influence of service areas other
than Lakeview, and highly variable water use during winter
months make the data difficult to fully interpret.  The
Arkansas Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Sewage Disposal
Systems specify a design flow of 75 to 100 gal/capita/day for
single family dwellings and 50 to 65 gal/capita/day for motels
(per bed space).  EPA guidelines suggest 60 to 70 gal/capita/day
for residential use in towns  with projected ten year populations
of 5,000 or less.  Residential per capita use of 75 gal/day
was chosen as a reasonable figure based upon water use data
and other guidelines.  The tourist and commercial wastewater
flow at Lakeview is estimated to increase the current design
wastewater flow to approximately 100 gal/capita/day based upon
two person occupancy of each  of the 155 motel units and an
associated 60 gal/capita/day.  The projected design flow is
also based upon 100 gal/capita/day.

-------
tiu.es as  >:;uch as -in larger communities,  the need  for feasible
alternatives  is clear."
                                       not
        The  third document that we did/find is  a Heno froc
Douglas H.  Costle.   ilr. Costle tool-: over Itossell  Train's job
as Administrator of US3PA.  His Meao is  in res-.onse to Xr. Train.1 s
a-opeal  on beualf of small communities.   It is  entitled "CONSTRUCTION
GHATITS  Program Requirements KeEorinduia :fo. 77-8 for tha Tundin-3 of
Sewage  Collection System Projects.  It describes  the 3?A. Policy
for carrying  out the provisions of Public Law  95-?00 w;,ich is
the federal v/atcr Pollution Control Act  of 1972.   Costle's
lleno.was  issued effective in June 1977.  It is 5  very important
doc'jnent.   First, it has retroactive provisions  that ;:;,I'.:D it
apply to  the  La..::eviev; Area Proji'^t.  Ar.d, rore ii:;oort'intly, it
tells the SPA Regional offices what ti'.ey can vio and vrti-it they
cannot  do in  the way of funding of v/astevn fcer  disposal Tro.';ccts»
        I  •.•/ill ;;et bac • to PPM 77-3 in a  .r.oEient, but f'.'.rst let
::s mention  three other important dociurjents that •.-;er(-; not provided.
These doci.":;;:ents from tha S."'A office of Research and Developcnent
were published last October under the general  title of
"Alternatives for Scall './astewater Systems."   :io.  1 of the
series  is titled "On-Sita Disposal/Sentage Treafcent and. Disposal."
?To. 2 is  "Prossttre  Sewers and 7acui;u Sewers."  -'«nd .'To, 3 is
"Cqst/Sffectiveness tealysis.  After careful study, it is my
considered  opinion  that we would be both stupid and irresponsible
to males any decision until we have digested these  si;: documents.
       Let  se ::ive  you just one quotation frorj pa^e 6 of the
report  on OnJ'Site Disposal.  I quote "The trend toward ~ravity
scwers with a connon central tra-.itn.ent plant has  eliminated many
v/orthy  alternatives fron; consideration.  If this  bias can be
changed and ths noncentral concept used, environmental and

-------
monetary  costs of v.-astewater facilities in many coEX-unities could
be significantly reduced by reducing the siseo:?,  or  eliminating-
the collection system and by simplifying the treatment facility."
        On-site disposal facilities are considered most appropriate
where.  the following three conditions are found:
        1)  Low population density.
            We are told that the  low population density advantage
             we now enjoy will  be cured as soon as we get 'sewers.
        2)  Rocky and Hilly terrain.
            Hocks and hills we  have in abundance.
        3)  Shallow bedrock.
            On this point there is mch disagreement.  The Engineers
maintain  bedrock is between three and five feet deep.  I knew
differently, and said so in the  record of the Public Eearing two
years  ago.  The SPA investigated and found that I was right and
tha 3ingineers were wrong.  A. probable source of 1he  the data used
by the Engineers may have been from studies of soil  conditions
in Washington and 3enton Counties in the Northwest  corner of
Arkansas.  Heal data on our part of Baxter County would not have
supported their claim that (1) soil conditions will  not perr.it
septic systems to function, and  (2) that extensive blasting all
over the  project area will be  required to make trenches for
the sewers.  Let me make this  comment on geology  for what it
may be worth.  The. soils in Washington and Henton County are
from the  Mississippian aga.  Our soils~in Baxter  County are
Ordovician and have, an extra  1QO million years  b£  exposure to
the weather.   They could be better.
        The Engineers must have  known that extensive- blasting all
over  the  area would not be needed.  The have figured on the cost
of only 3200  cubic yards of rock excavation.  That much will
                       EPA RESPONSE

         EPA feels that the discussion of alternative systems
 in the Draft EIS is adequate.
         Soils classification and  characteristics used  in the
Draft  EIS were based on Soil Conservation Service field  inves-
tigations and studies in the Lakeview area.  The soil  types
assigned from these studies generally show the depth-to-rock
to range from 0 to.12 feet.  Field  reconnaissance and  other
information gathered during the EIS study further indicate
highly irregular depth-to-rock in the Lakeview area.   Baxter
County soils are derived from the weathering of Ordovician age
rocks.  The soils have not had an extra 100 million years of
exposure to the weather.
         Revised project cost estimates include provision for
10,000 cu yd of rock excavation.

-------
cone  out of the trench  alomr the shoreline  of  3d;;ewood 3ay alone.
More  on that later.
        For now, let.'s set  back to I-!r. Costle's Policy Memo 77-8.
Some  of its renrireKents "ire svuniarized on.  pa.^e  3 of the ^IS.
For example, there must have been a community  in existence on
this  site back before 1972 when the law on  '.rater pollution
                                         can.e into .existence
control '.-/as enacted.  But  if the cocmunity  //Ap/ after 1972
any mistakes we made would  be our own responsibility.  Since  our
community was here before 1972,  and if we now have a public
health  problem or if we  ar-: polluting the ;Trcv.ndwater, then maybe
the 3?A can ^ive us back soce of our own :.'.oney for a sewer EVE ten.
So far  no one has been able to document a public health problem,
and the evidence for groundwater pollution  is not at all persuasive.
        But hold on, there is another string.  This one is passed
over  very lightly and I  think, is stated wrongly in the 3ISV  p.3-
.Juote:  "Treatment works  funded under the grants pror-rac oust
also  represent the most  cost-effective alternative."  I think
the law actually covers  both parts, i.e. the  collection systsn
and the treatment facility.  :/uote from 77-3: ".the Facility
Plan  must demonstrate, where population density is less than  10
persons per acre, (as it is in Lakeview) that alternatives are
clearly less cost-effective than new gravity  collector-sewer
construction and centralized treatment."
        PHK 77-8 has one  more restriction.   This one is designed.
to. prevent SPA from funding any project that  will primarily
benefit future real estate  developments.  It  does this -1 ijrtiKm itegR
by liaitin" the size of  the fund-able project  to acconodate liEited
growth  - such as may have occurred sines! 1972  This makes ~ood
sense.   If you need to sewer houses built before 1972 you could
hardly  bypass houses on  the  same street that  frere built after 1972.
                       [PA RtSPONSE

         Based upon well sampling  and survey of septic  tank
systems' performance and  evaluation of the areas' geology,
soils,  and development, characteristics as discussed in  Sections
2.1, 2.2, and  2.3, LPA lias obtained sufficient evidence  of
ground  water pollution and potential health problems.
         Ihe  term "treatment works" is used correctly  since
it includes "collection system and  the treatment facility" as
defined in EPA regulations, 10 CFR  35.905-23.
         Cost-effective  analysis  is "an analysis performed to
determine which waste treatment management system or component
part thereof will result  in the minimum total resources  cost
over time to meet the Federal, State, or local requirements."
While  improving on-site systems may be cheaper initially, EPA
does not feel  it. is most  cost-effective considering long-term
environmental  and public  health protection.

-------
Let ne quote  the provision in FBM 77-8:   "No award may be made
for a new sewer system in a community  in  existence on October 18,
1972 unless it is further determined by the Regional Administrator
that the  bulk (generally tea- thirds) of the flow design capacity
through the sewer system will be for waste waters originating
from the  community (habitation) in existence on October 18, 1972."
            This provision, is known as  the two-thirds rule.
The population of Lakeview in 1972 is  not known but probaly was
about two-thirds of the Wk- count in 1578.  This takes care of
the two— thirds rule..  If a sewer system is designed to_accomodate
the large population projected for 1995*  the two-thirds rule would
have to be applied over again for each, five year period.  Hefora
funding is approved I hope SPA will explain how this can be
done under existing law.
       -Wkerr I was sworn- vta-X-aroiBtsad— tu  Lel'l Lhb Ire Hi, — the1 -whole
            gKriuij liub'-bfaa- -truth ».  This—is- ar-bi# ureter ' andTrwoTi*!:
          i tin ofiq^trijuearaftqa.  There  are three subjects I want
covered and I will do it if nobody else does.. These are:
        1)  Pollution
        2)  Price
        3) Pos sibilities
        I want to talk about pollution and .then I will sit  down
for a while.  Pollution could be  caused by
        1)  Septic Systems
           Or I"-;,
        2)  Sewers
        When I read the the Environmental. Assesment, the Facility
Plan and the Draft SIS' it seemed  that we were comparing
Malfunctioning Septic Systems with Perfect Sewer Systems.
I think it would be equally biased to compare Perfect Septic
                      EPA RESPONSE

         The "two-thirds rule" allows  routine system design
and  grant eligibility  for a 50% increase in sewer line capacity.
In smaller communities the 8-inch minimum sewer line size,
required by state and  EPA standards of  good practice, generally
provides substantial excess capacity and, thus, negates the
effect of the two-thirds rule.

-------
         with Malfunctioning Sewer °ysterns.
        Can you  imagine a situation in which  EPA would hire  a St.
Louis Engineering  firr.; to cone  here and see  if thay could find
a  fev perfectly functioning • septic systems?   Then we could cay
"The  present system is beautiful.  Why should we spend millions
for  something less sood?"  That would be  -pretty biased.
        I would  Ilia to take a middle course  and compare  ordinary
properly installed septic systems with ordinary sewers in the
context of our  local conditions of soil and  bedrock.        •'  '. -'^-^'
        My information on how septic systems  do their job is taken
from  the EPA research brochure  on On-Site Disposal.  On  page 18
they  show how effectively the soil in a septic system absorption
field removes coliform bacteria from the  effluent.  This particular
trench was in a medium sand soil.  The percolation test  \-as not
fjiven but L. suspect it was faster than our clay soils, and
therefore would have been somewhat less effective.  7our sa:..^les
were  taken at different levels  about one'foot from the surface
of the trench.   The samples were analyzed for coliforn bacteria
and compared with  the raw effluent.  After pass3;re through  only
oaw £uui- of undisturbed soil the coliform bacteria had been
reduced by 99.99 plusfiin sample  1, by 99.6fj'  in 2,  99.99plus in 3
and 99-97& in sample 1+.  ?rom this and other studies they conclude
that  2 to 3 feet of soil will filter out all bacteria and viruses.
    Ark.. Law k02 requires a minunum of four  feet of soil between
the bottom of the  trench and bedrock.   In most of  the Lakeview
Area  we have much  more than that..  Flow much  more I do not know.
I  have asked EPA for well drilling records   to see how deep
they  have  to., drill  to hit bedrock.   I  am waiting for this
information.   I  have other information from  geological studies
that  sinkholes such as we have here are unlikely to be formed
                       EPA  RESPONSE

         The EIS comparc;> the existing septic tank systems
with minimal practical controls and, in many cases, marginal
conditions  for installation,  with the anticipated results of a
carefully controlled collection and treatment system.   EPA
recognizes that there are septic tank systems that are operating
satisfactorily without effluent surfacing,  however, this does
not alter the fact that a significant number of systems have
failed  and ground water pollution is evident, comprising
potential health problems.
         Suitability of soils is based on  various factors.
tow permeability and fraqipan layers of soils in the Lakeview
area may result in saturated  condition-; with a corresponding
decrease in pollutant removal efficiency and early absorption
field failure.   Excessive rock content of  the soil may constitute
a coarse media with resultant loss of pollutant removal
efficiency.  Excessive rock may also reduce  the effective soil
absorption area and result in early absorption field failure.
Excessive slope and inadequate deptn-to-rock are limiting in
some areas.   These factors are of much concern in the Lakeview
area as reflected  in the soils classifications and ratings  for
septic  tank systems.  Municipal and domestic well log records
were reviewed for depth-to-rock  information; however, it was
found that the data were not  sufficiently available or reliable
to draw meaningful conclusions in the Lakeview area.   A very
extensive boring program would be necessary to define the
depth-to-rock profile.  The statement that  "sinkholes such  as
we have here are unlikely to  be formed if the soil is  less
than 33 feet deep" is not true.

-------
if the  soil  is less than 33 feat deep.   In any case, if septic
systems are  properly installed under  suitable  site conditions
there is virtually no> possibility of gdZuting  our wells "-with
bacteria by  tha downward percolation  of septic tank effluent.
        Surfacing is another problem.  It can generally be avoided
by proper  installation in a large enough field..  All of the
systems ins-tailed under the supervision of our County Sanitarians
seem to have functioned as they  should,  I understand the
Sanitarian has aroused some ire  by  enforcing the law,
        There is much said in  the Draft  SIS about nitrate and
chloride and organic pollution in shallow wells..  There is alss
some scare talk.  One reference  threatened cancer if you drink
tha water.  The Draft 3IS on  page 8 says: "Szcessive nitrates
in drinking water may cause methemoglobinemia, a serious and
sometimes: fatal, disease of infants."  I don't understand why
this use of scare tactics  when  the very next sentence says:
"The highest concentrations found did not approach the. drinking
water health standard.   The current health standard allows up
to 10 milligrams  per liter.  The two  highest levels found in
wells were >+,6 and 2.7  mg/1,  definitely on the safe side.
The- inorganic constituents that night have coir.e  from septic
systems, inaddition to nitrate, are chloride  and  Phosphate..
Phosphate  comes from the use of detergents in  laundry and dish
washing.   Except for the two wells noted,  all  others had nitrate,
chloride andphctajihate contents that were: close to the concentrations
present in Ehe water of 3ull Shoals Lake.  It is  interesting and
probably significant that the • two. wells having- elevated nitrate'
and chloride.did  aot have elevated phosphate.   Therefore, septic
         It was not  the intent of EPA  to use scare tactics
but to point out the  significance of the elevated nitrate
levels found in the wells.   While no nitrate health problem is
evident at the levels detected, the potential for such a
problem is not precluded because of increased pollution from
further septic system use and development, possible seasonal
variations, or higher levels at wells which have not been
monitored.
         The results are not unexpected  since phosphorus
tends  to become fixed in the soil and is  not likely to leach
out, while nitrate and chloride  are more  mobile.

-------
pollution froc nearby  sources is n.ost  unlikely.
        There are other core persuasive sources of  nitrate and
chloride  in :>roundwater.   For example, Rainwater contains
nitrate.   The luxuriant vegetation  all arox:nd us is  custainod
by nitrates that are foraed by the  action of li^htenlns on air.
3very waterer of house  plants knows that rainwater is  best.
And of  course, we all  help nature by spreading lar=;e  amounts
of lawn fertilizers.   A single bag  of  arjnonium nitrate is
capable of 'polluting'  a  million gallons of drinking  water.
        Chloride could  cote fror; sentic systen.s.  Lar :e amounts
are. used  for re^eneratin;- water softeners.  However, there is
an l:;.-rortant but highly variable natural source.   Our soils
wera laid down in »e:jlo;;ic time in  a salty sea.  Salt is constantly
bein-- leached out of the  soil and rocits.  One needs  only to :ra
over to Oklahoma where: salt leaching is so :.uch of a  rroolen
that the  Corp of injjineurs wants to s^end  ;6CO million on a
vast project to keex) salt out of the Arkansas ?.iver  to improve
its use for irrigation.
        Orrranic catter  in  watar from shallow wells  has  been
attributed to saitic- tank sources-   A little arithmetic showir
this to be unlikely.   Under Arkansas law you need  about 1.5 acres
of land to have both a seotic tank  and a well.  If your -arcolation
test is a conservative  20 minutes you  will be required to have
'+20 square feet of absorption trench.   Divide ^+20  square feet
by 1.5  acres and you get  0.65> of your land..  The  other 99f» is
covered with decaying  ,-;rass and leaves.  I would have  to vote
for decayi.ni' vegetation as the major source.
        So r:.uch for pollution froc  septic systecs.   '3y now it
should  be- evicent th : t  we have very little.
        How consider gravity sewers,  and rei:;ei;.ber we  are deali:-.?
                       EPA RESPONSE

         Nitrate in  rain water  and potential nitrate pollution
from fertilizers are  recognized  as sources;  however,  EPA  dot",
not agree that thei.e  are the major contributing factor1;  in the
elevated nitrate levels found in the Lakeview area.
         Salt, pollution of  the Arkansas  River in Oklalionia is
caused by both man made and  natural sources.  The natural
sources are formed in rocks  of Permian A
-------
                         10
with the  same  soilconditions and underlying fractured rock as
for septic  systems.  Bacteria are  filtered out by soil but
they can  travel long distances-in  fissured rock and especially
in solution, channels and underground caverns. .
       We all  know of the recent disaster at West Plains,  Mo.
Their  terrain  is just like-,ours -  rocky and Bully and having
numerous  sinkholes.  Last May-when their sewage lagoon collapsed,
the polluted water went underground for many miles and caused
hundreds  of people to.get sick.  They had a real bad public
health problem.
       rfow  what do our authorities plan fop- us?  In the
3nvironmental  Assessment, page 31  the engineers say: " Essentially,
the entire  project area where facilities are proposed to  be
constructed as shown on the Layout Map at the back of this
report, will be subject to-blasting.  Most of the blasting' is
anticipated to occur during construction of the lines, with
only EinimaJ-blasting at the treatment plant site,."
       I  don't really believe it will be this way, but the
Sngineers had  to say it to support their allegation that  the-
3 to 5 foot depth to bedrock would preclude the functioning of
septic' systems,  I don't think they believed it either.   Vihen
they computed  the cost of rock excavation the soil suddenly
became much thicker, and only 3200 cubic yards would be- blasted
               ~.-..-.if,
out, at acost  ofA1&3,000. (Compare this with the Bull Shoals
system where 57,000 yards of rock  will be blasted at a cost of
nearly .5600,000).  If the average  depth to bedrock in the Lakeview
Area is ^ feet and 3200 yards of rock is removed from a two.foot
wide trench, the average trench will be only 'f feet and *f inches
deep.  There is no easy way to lay gravity sewers across  our
     O~n,J- I.—'-i'J-
-------
                            11
cottor.i  oi"  the  trench without having most of the pipe above  ground
on trestles-
        Of  cours:;  it  won't be like that.  Take a closer look at
the la/out map.   ~/JU will ;;ee a lar;;:e sewer main alon/j the
shore of Bull  Shoals Lake.  It extends froia the western boundary
of Glen Cove to  the  eastern boundary of Leisure Mills subdivision.
It is approximately  2.25 miles in length and 10 inches in diameter /T.
cost of the way.   About 1/8 miles (9000 ioet) will be laid  in
the 'Sn;;ineer's  Strip'  just above hi'h water mark.  Much of the
'strip' has little or no soil cover.  The building sites adjoining  ~
'strip' have minimal soil cower.  There are approximately 22
homes on these sites,  of which three were li.'-ted a$ possible
•iroblerns.   This  is the  area in which extensive blasting would
occur.  A  two-foot vide trench 9000 feet Ion:- would only have
to be l!-..5  feet into  the rock to yield tr.e entire budget of  3200 ysrd;
        '.ihy do  I aake a  point of this?  The ksy words for privity
sowers  are 'infiltration'  and 'exfiltration'.  Gravity sever
pipe leaks like  a  sieve.   That is why the Mountain ':'.o;^= tr'j'ite.ent
plant is overwhelmed whenever it rains. There are other •ij.iz.-lts.
?air.ly  recently,  plans  were bein,-? made in Hot Spririrs, Ark  to
build a 20.. million jallon treatment plant.  Instead, they decided
it would be cheaper  to  reduce the leakage and build a 12 million
gallon  plant.  Reminds  one of the dyin" Texan who was too big
for any coffin -  so  they gave hir.. a bottle of n.ilk of magnesia.
Zou rei.'.eir.ber t',;e  program on 60 Minutes about Grandview Lak;:, Ind.
They poured 15,000 jalljns of water in one manhole and it never
reached the next  one  300  feet away.   Last week in 3assvillc=  I
heard the  sane kinti  of  story.   I think they said 50,000 gallons.
        In  the  thrv'j  dociments on the Lakeview system that w\
have had so far,  the  word  'e;:filtration'  is never used.  The

-------
                            12
word 'infiltration1 is -used only  twice..  It appears  on rages
2  and 11 of the  Facility Plan.of Sept. 1976 in  the  following
context: "The maximum wet day flow, was determined by adding
..the maximum allowable, infiltration based on 100 gallons per
inch of pipe diair.eter per mile per day.to the. maximum dry day
       6^. ;-..•'->.:.//
flow." /The Engineer promises: "The collection  system will be
designed and constructed so as to minimize the  amount of .
infiltration into the system.  This will significantly reduce
the flow into the plant." end of quote.
        Hot only  does water leak  into gravity sewer  pipe during
wet weather but  it carries with  i± soilvao»eon»ft*B.  If this
were not so we would not need manholes every 3°0 feet to clean
out the mud.  And grit disposal  at the treatment plant was
considered enough of a problem to warrant mention.
        The crux  of the problem,  however, is not infiltration
but 'exfiltration'.  It ray be a tnitism, but I  believe the holes
in the aipe are  the sama size in both directions..  If water leaks
in when the trench is wet, should not a comparable  amout of raw
 sewage leak out  when the trench  is dry?
        Our 3ngineer is allowed a leakage- rate  of 1QO gallons per
inch of gipe diameter p.er mile of pipe per dsy.  For a mile of
10 inch pipe that is 1000 gallons ger day.  I  have  checked with
Bull Shoals and  their allowance  is 200 gallons.  Then I checked
with SPA and was told that the normal expectation is 200 to 250
                                                             o  ^    •   ,
 gallons.                     •                               \ , ,  s—<•
        According too the Layout Map; in the Facility  Plan there
will be about 9000 feet of mos'tly 10 inch .pipe  within 300 feet
of the lake shore, where it borders on our swimming area in
Sdgewood 3ay.  This line receives sewage from  all .of the houses
                                       (J.i-'-i'S.».rTr.*. ;VX~ •
in Crlen Cove, Sdgewood 3ay,, Leisure Hills/and  Forest Shores, szcept
                       EPA RESPONSE

         With modern construction technology,  material technology,
inspection, and testing,  a  new sewer line should  not and will
not incur infiltration in excess of about 200 gal/inch of pipe
diameter/mile/day.  The joints used for the gravity pipe in
the Lakeview system will  be the same as those used for pressure
pipe and will minimize infiltration to a more stringent design
criteria of 100 gal/inch of pipe diameter/mile/day.
         Those sewer lines which do experience problem infil-
tration (generally older lines) do not necessarily exfiHrate.
Infiltration usually means  that the ground water  has built up
above the pipe flow line and the external head  has reached a
point that allows flow to enter the pipe.  The  required head
may be feet or inches depending on the nature of  the leak and
the infiltration will vary  with the head.  Since  an unsur-
charged 8-inch pipe could not have more than an 8-inch head,
this would limit exfiltration to a large extent.  Also, leaks
above the flow line of the  pipe, including manholes, can
infiltrate but not exfiltrate.   Also refer to Section 5.2.5.

-------
the/*fro» draining into id^ewood  Bay,  we wor.id be;sewa;'e  center
of  the  entire project.
        At the low rate of 100  gallons per inch of pipe dia;;.eter
                       ->v. >,-. .
this  900O foot section orttrtal leak  as li'.tla at 1700  gallons of
raw sew.a;:e per day.  If we use  the  moire realistic 200 to 250
                      jLo'-r-j-1'1- :'      •> •'•""'  '• '           -y»w  J-.'-."••]"-
gallons,  it would be *boo-f, ^000.,  ind remenb^r, this^would be
liakinjc directly into the fractured rock forr-atians that are
laced with solution channels and fissures.  ?rorr: there the raw
siwa--9  would spread out into the horizontal and verier!  o -enin;;s
in  the  rock L'orn.ation.  Soir.e would  flow toward tho la'-:.~  and
i.r/ade  our swiia^in:-; place.  One  answer is to 'juit sv;L;..nir_:r.
I aa  much rr.ore concerned about  the  destination of the stuff that
speads  in the opposite direction,  od.'ewood Bay '.roll  "o. 1 is
oi;l,7  't&Q feet iway, and well !>'£>.2 is  "j'oou~ 1000 feet  "i;rrf -
h.ardly  a safe distance.
        Ths SP.V is .aware of  this1 inpendin,:; disaster.   It  is
sentioaeu on pare 't3 of the Draft ilS as follows:  "Several 3-
and 10-inch gravity collection lines  'are planned to ilosel.' follov/
the shoreline of Bull Shoals Lake.  Much of this lakeshore area •
is  rather staep with shallovr,  fractured rock, ar.d is  close to
heavily-used water contact-recreation arc-as.  Sewer-line leakage
in  these  rocky areas can result  in  nearly direct seepage: Into
the. lake,  causing pollution and  possible health risks."
        I  have another concern with  the  gathering of all  this
v/'astawater into one Inrje line.   The  -
-------
                          lit
two major  sinkhokes. This  seer.s like poor  engineering because
of the danger that deep  trenches cut into  the surface could
cause an instability that  @ould trigger a  catastrophic collapse
when water accumulates after a very heavy  rain.  Such sinkhole -'•
collapses  have happened  repeatedly at West Plains.
       The danger of sinkhole collapse can be avoided if  the
Engineers  will simply slope  the entire .length of. the lakeshore
collector  main toward Glen Cove.  You would still need the
pumping-  station.  But, by locating 'it at  the Glen Cove terminus,
the pressure main would  go directly across Glen Cove subdivision
               ^.•^^.~  . ..,,.-.v
to feed,  into the^main ^Jr Highway 178.  This would avoid crossing1
any sinkholes aad save- almost a mile of expensive pressure  pipe.
However, it would not relieve the pollution problem of our
swimming area and our wells..
       I hava one more thing toe say about  Edgewood 3ay,   V/hen
it was originally laid out there was no plan for later addition
of sewers,, so the water  mains were, laid behind the houses.
Therefore, tha Engineers had no choice but to lay the sawers
in front of the houses.  This will double  the cost of connecting
in many  cas:es.  It will  also damage our streets.
       As  long as this project remains in  Phase L, Ed^ewood Bay
may still  have a choice.   If put to,a referendum would anyone
in Edgewood Bay willingly  sacrifice our swimming, our we!3s or
even our streets?
       **t  this point I will  gladly relinquish the podium  if
I will be  called back later  to discuss cost projections.
                       EPA RESPONSE

         Sinkholes are two major types, solution and collapse.
Solution sinkholes develop slowly beneath the soil mantle
without physical disturbance of the rock in which they are
developing.   Collapse sinkholes are produced by  roof collapse
above an underground void and, therefore, appear suddenly.
Highway 178 crosses a collapse-type sinkhole, while solution-
type sinkholes  are evident in Edgewood Bay, Glen Cove, and
Lakeview.   Since failure prediction for sinkholes is about the
same as for earthquakes, and the entire Lakeview plateau area
has potential for sinkhole failures, there is little to be
gained by rerouting sewer lines to avoid existing sinkhole
areas.  The proposed treatment plant location in the alluvial
flood plain area is not subject to sinkhole problems.
         Because of topography and the elevation of residences
to be served, the suggested interceptor routing  toward Glen
Cove would be difficult to design without an additional pump
station.

-------
        ;.iith our li:.-itsd population desit/ .if less than 10 person
per  acre,  the i?A  is  prohibited  f.-or;; funding any proposal ey.cept
the  one that is most  cost-effective.  Therefore  we will need
to know what a new sewer sycter:  and treatment  pl.int will cost.
V.'c will also need  to  know the cost of u^gradini^  our, on-sit
                                                     -ti^Cr^-^
disposal facilities.   The SPA r:,ust be confident  that thoy ca
be up°;radec; satisfactorily because ti:eycai;.e up with a very
precise estimate of the cost.  To  find out each  terser:.? sh'/re £ij
We need Topulat-.^n data.
                             -     'four share
Tour  share can be n:ade  to look vsry -.odest by  ^.tt.L:i;-- too f::w
collars  in the cost  or  by putting  too many people in the population.
       Bob Lee iias^already cocmentcc on the population projections
       Urc
and how  fe
           s predicting  t^:e cost will run twice  the
esti;::ate.   '.;e were  advised to coEr:".ire, witii Cotter-GassvilJ •=
because  of similar  populations,   .is  can ;;et a aore  current
estimate by coapariri^  with 3ull Shoals.  Their  population is
larger but their ;;ore  compact shape-  needs only a little ;;.ore
pine;  1^1,000 lineal  feet cor.'.pared  with 121,000 for LilK.viev? =

1971)-
1975
1976
1977
1973
Cotter
Gassville
1.5
2.0
2.2
2.3 bid
3-b'-*-
Lakeview
-
-
1.6
1.6
2.0
                                                       Shoals
                                                        3-3
                       [.PA  KtSPONSf

         Cost.-el f ecLivc does not. necessarily mean the cheapest
initial  investment.  In the  lakevicw area, continuing and
increasing problems ol  septic system failures, ground water
pollution, and health problem:, can be expected, even  if current
documented failures are provided with limited, localised
remedies.  U'A does not believe such partial  remedies are cost-
effective cons i define) long-term environmental and public
heal t.h  protection.
                        done

-------
                            Price  2
       On the  cost  of upgrading on-site disposal systems, I can
only say that  the Draft  313 is in part a response to:the
questions I raised  tiro years ago in the record of tfcce Public
Searing.  These  questions  should have been answered long ago.
                                 J
They were not.  There is a reouirment in. the instructions for
the preparation,  of  the Facility Plan that a.n questions raised
afr the Public  Hearing must be answered.  My questions were
unanswered but not  unnoticed.  On page 6 of the Facility Plan
the Engineers  stata:  "Alternate Us. ^ consists of upgrading- the
operation,maintenance and  efficiency of existing facilities.
Specifically,  this  would include repairing and extending1 the
numerous malfunctioning  septic systems..."  The Engineers simply
swept the whole  question under the- rug by damning septic systems
with the pejorative, adjectives 'numerous' and "malfunctioning1.
Absolutely no  dajta  were  give.
     -  Because the-  engineers failed to do the required work, we
are now put to the  added expense of preparing the Draft SIS and
the inconvenience: of this  Public Hearing.  The Engineers were
paid well enough for wkat  tha; accomplished.  The environmental
Assessment and Facility  Plan cost us approximately :$1 per word.
       At long last we are getting some information.  You will
have to be the judge of  its value. I have serious reservations.
       The Draft SIS" outlines what was done to collect this
information.on page 6.   "A survey was made in September and
October, 1.977, to, determine the extent of septic-tank-system
problems, with emphasis  on identifying systems which have had
problems."  It is this admitted emphasis on seeking out specific
problems  that  biases the results and  does not permit  the, data
to be used as   a survey.   JTever-the-less  these AHA data  are used
                      EPA RESPONSE

         "The Problem and Issues" which were the factors
involved in the decision to prepare the EIS are included in
Section A of the Executive Summary.

-------
Price 3
                                                                             EPA RESPONSL
on  page 19 of  the  SIS as if a  bona fide survey  had baen made..
        Records were  developed  on  some 50 systems in the Lakeview
area.   Some '+0 of  these were sought out on  the  basis of leads
furnished by Kayor ^honkv/iler  and by asking  people for referrals
to  neighbors that  might have problems..  The  rest in?re from  the
County Sanitarian's  records on people who had contacted him for
advice on repairs.  In this way 'J  list of 28  people out of the1
50  considered hatfe,or have corrected, problems it one time or
another.  I:: this  list all but 7  had long since been corrected.
        28 over 50  gives: a problem rate of 56>.   This, evidently,
wasn't bad enough,  so seven :nor-:  problems were  counted in th.3
outlying areas.  These were included in the  numerator but not
in  the denominator to raise the problem rate to 70,',', as of
October 1','77.  This  percehtai-e was then applied to., the number
of  septic systems  in existence in Lakeview-SsSwr as of 1975.
The  result was 126  systems in  L.akeview needin:-  major rehabilitation.
        Remember  that EPA is not illowed to .fund  any system
unless it is the most cost-effective, The cost  .'ig-ure our
analyst selected is  315,5^ average cost for eachfeystem upgraded.
If you multiply  the  number of  alleged orobles systems by the
average cost of  o!5>  5^0 you get  the total capital cost of
vl,958,fl^0 cited in  the SIS.   This is for Lalceview pwoper/ and
if extended to the 375 septic  systems in the area on the same
70f»  ratio,  you will  get a total cost of ^.l  million for- repairs
to compare with  2,0^1,  000 for a  totally new sewer system.
        I am told by  SPA that this computation is for purposes
of illustration  to arrive at a ^er house cost so it,doesn't
                                                y
matter if Jrou ur.e the whole area  or just a part of it.   This is
true.   But I am still curious  as  to how our  analyst arrived at
)16.18  :erkonth,for  the upgraded  systems.
                                                                EPA doci'  not believe  that seekint:)  out. specific
                                                       problems compromises  Lhe results of the septic Lank systems
                                                       survey.  The survey mentioned in I'J'A I'royram Requirements
                                                       Memorandum  //-8 is  not necessarily a random  statistical  survey.
                                                       It. is a survey t.o determine extent, of problems and mal functions
                                                       much .is one would survey the damage caused by a storm or
                                                       flood,  lor' the' time  that, was available,  it.  was much more?
                                                       practical to investigate those  areas where problems had  been
                                                       evident, rather than try to examine every  system.   t PA ayrces
                                                       that, there  are residences in the Lakevlew community wish
                                                       oivsite systems that,  function adequately  and may continue  to
                                                       function with proper  care.   However, this does not change  the
                                                       sit.nation for those systems that have failed or that can lie-
                                                       expected to fail  in the future  because of limitations ol site
                                                       conditions, poor  ma inlenance, or improper use.  Nor does t.his
                                                       chaiuje the  qround water' pollution problem resulting from
                                                       extensive septic  lank systems use, even from systems that
                                                       function without  effluent surtacimj.
                                                                 Environmental effects  must, be considered in the
                                                       cost-el feet ive analysis.  EPA will  fund Itrj most cost-effective
                                                       plan with  Lhe least environmental  impac'..

-------
Considering  that three-fourths  of the cost would be funded by
an SPA  grant,  the local share would be 4-89,510 payable over 20
years.   The  only way 126 families could pay  off a W9,510 dollar
loan in 20 years at 316.18  pensonth would be if that loan was
interest free.  If so, I would  certainly liire to meet our
analyst's banksr-1  On the other hand, if there is no interest
charge, this could be a once only cash transaction.  Our average
family  would have to. put up nearly 4-000 dollars.
        3y now it should be  obvious that our  analyst merely forgot
to include  the 8'J interest  charge.  7or these families to pay
off the 4-39,510 in 20 years at  8,=» interest would actually
cost 333.10  per month, not  316.13.  JJobody is perfect bjrt an
oversight of sore than half 3 million dollars is pretty bad..
        Our analyst does not describe how he  arrived at the
precise figure of 315,;4Q dollars.  1 have tried to figure it
out by  looking at his data  on costs of various aspects of the
alternative  systems.  The closest I aan come £s about 6600 dollars.
To reach the 6600 figure you have to start with the most expensive
on—sits system with high power  consumption and complex operation» •
Then you have- to a-cjuire more land at the going- price of 321,000
p-er acre.  You will -aia». have to buy 2«5 times as r.uch land for
your second  field as stata  law requires.  And that gets you less
than half way to the alleged cost.
        Another cruestion  that bothered me was  the choice  of
interest ratas.  The  cost  of upgrading was  always  figure^ at
the rate of 3;» on a  20,-year loan.  The rate  for our. share of
the  cost of sewer systems  was ?J»  on a UO-year loan.
        Starting with  the  same data as the 313, I have cade  my
own estimates.  I think  the problem on-site  systems could be  put
into  tip-top shape for a  few hundred thousand dollars,  compared
with  .",;4-.l million.
                       EPA RESPONSE

         The interest costs on capital items were not overlooked,
and were included in the  monthly cost figures presented in
Section 3.2.4 from which  total costs were calculated.
         The $15,540 figure was based on the  monthly cost
(including interest) for an upgraded  septic system of $64.75
per month x 12 months/year x 20 years.  The upgraded system
costs are those presented in Section  3.2.4 and include absorp-
tion field expansion, added land,  and treatment using aeration
or sand filtration with associated operating costs.
         Choice of  interest  rates is based upon  rates, reasonably
estimated to be available.  The 5%, 40-year FHA loan rate is
available for the financing of the local share of the proposed
project.  Since this low rate would not be available for
on-site  systems upgrading,  a  commercial rate estimated at 8%
was used to compare  the actual costs for the residents.
         Estimated  costs for upgrading on-site systems are
discussed in Section 3.2.2  and 3.2.4.

-------
        So r.iuch for the  cast data  .is presented in  the  3is.


How vrfaere do  we 30 from here?


        I would like to  see a bor.a fide survey r::ada.   Two years


ar;o  I tried, to gat such a survey  raafle in 3d,"ewood Bay.  T wis


turned down.


        It. would not be  too difficult" to send  a Sanitary 2n;;ineer                      l.'I'A  . ion.'i!  lime  -mil cost of


to  every last one of  the  375 on-site installations in the Project           '' '^"^ "'  l''lth "' Ul" :i/!' <"'"'i(l' ''V'-'™'- '•• W'i'TdnU.,1.

                                                                                   Con-, i d(>r in(|  .ill  i i;l (irm.il inn iifit.hcrtvl ilurini.) Lin; p 1,11111 i nij

Area,  He should be aocompanied by a licensed ocerator who                                                    ,  ,  ,     •  ,.   , •   ,  , K -
                                                                                   process, fl'A !».'I irv/cs I.In' rccoimiii'iMli'H  plan  in Uu' I inal  MS i:

would be qu^liried to estimate the cost of  eliminating each                  (.lie l.!>c most rost-i-l tot.l.i vc ,; I l.ccn.il.i vc wit.ii t!ic lc;i:.t nclvcvs.-;


'ixlstin.^ oroblem*  'Dais woi Id  ^.Lve vis ti;e cost; data we neod»                 cnv inMimrnLt I  impiK.l.  -nnl the m"'.l  rriMliic  Innq-l.enn  [;iMiel 11:..


        In the unlifely  event that the costs of r2--air are too                l"  ' h" <^'<>"«  o-mrnuni i.y.


::ro.-it,  we would still need to stucy t.he c;.:c--rper :•;!ternatives


described by  JPA i.; the n.issin.^ dccuiLencso  Those docucients


STecifioally  warned a.-'ainrt the probl;iQs Inherent in  conventiornl


gravity sewer systen.s c'or rocky and hilly  tsriMi.i.


        finally,  3PA should be on  notice that  every effort vill


be rr.ade to assure strict  conf.Dn~a.ncs wit!; the J.PA Policy as


set  fnrth in  PH1-; ",o. 77-3,  and wi r.h the renuire-.eiv.s  of Public


Law  92-JCO.
                               . IAJ

-------
                                              3ox 90,  Route  1
                                              Laiteview,
                                              AR 726^2
                   August 25. 1978
                                                                                                        NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B.. S-jotts
Regional SIS Coordinator
•First International Building
1201 tlm Street
Dallas, TX 75270     '  .. .  .

Dear Mr. 3'potts:

    •• '   This letter is 'to  confirni that a Conference has'^  	  .
set up  with members of  the  BIS  section for 13 September,  1978.
The undersigned will be accompanied by i-ir. James Saston and
Mr. Robert S.Lee.  We will  be interested in discussing several
aspects of the SIS for  the  proposed Lalceview, Arkansas Waste-
water Treatment Facility.

        We  are  concerned with  the impacts any wastewater
treatment  facility will have  on future growth patterns in the
area, and  the  secondary effects on the attractiveness of the
area as a  retirement and  tourism center.

        'We  are  concerned with  the dollar costs of a large gravity
collection system in unfavorable terrain, and about the projec-
tions of future populations to  divide the costs.  In a retire-
ment situation there are  many widows and potential widows and
others  of  limited means on  fixed incomes to be considered.

        'We  are  concerned with  alternatives, and whether the
community  might not be  better served if existing problems were
handled in smaller neighborhood units.

        We  are  concerned about the sources and amount of alleged
pollution  and  any real  or potential effects on public health.
Is  there a need and if so does  it point to the present proposal
as  the  optimum solution?

        We  are  concerned -whether possible overdesign (300,000
gallons per day) eight  not  load costs on the nresent population
for the benefit of yet undeveloped areas.

        'We  are  concerned whether new technology .-.ay have nroduced
viable  alternatives that  may  not have been sufficiently addressed.

        It  is our understand ing  that any information developed
during  the 18  September meeting will be considered timely
presented, despite the  7  September date for input set by llrs.
Button  at  the  Lakeview Hearing, and will be incorporated in the
Final Draft Environmental Inpact Statement.

        We  look forward  to t.eeting with your staff and offer our
COL.piete cooperation in this  matter.

                            Sincerely yours,

-------
iff.

                                                            '-^^tS^'J/CV-i^'-;^'-/  .jC^-. — A-—??— ~^\
                                                                  'f-^-v) J(s-iL4.  Kh,,f_^. fO  /v-^
                                                                       	     .-v-  T
                                               -'-f.&•'!-<•-'•<:•' ^-''{-c-y.   .t-i~:s"i-"*•'-"-*f ~vf.-<'-c'~,~J- '
                                                                                                                                         i PA  (MM  en I y  [iiiiil  -•! prijjoc I   i '   1 he  1 or:;) I  pi-op I o wan!,

                                                                                                                            it  i.sinl  aijree  t.o pay  ',hn i r sh.in*.    I he  (),-•( j;;t;i w,: l^r  IHJ I  1 ul, i on

                                                                                                                            and septic:  sy.U-Mii  problems (Ic-cuiiienled  :i:  ' aKcv i -..-w  (.,tiow  t.ht.i<-.^

                                                                                                                            ',\"> t.enis h.iv  t;i-n't.a i n 1 y  not In.1 (MI  1 u'l ! y  • ' • •> ••  , i 111  .

-------
          £
4;
         o
         X
           (.K <^-^.^_i,

                  "
                                    (?>fA\
                                                                          / • •?- S
                                                  At
                                                                 /. 2-5
                                                                 > • 7 5

                              f!— t — A_>: — ^>
     C    $     ^    rt  (")  Vf         ,7      1  (:
   5.A.-,-—K   U-L /-•tV^X-cV  (A.--C  vf-i^rii--i.--<_..J.;-«
 (.^

•^./U-   a--
                                     '•^i
                                      LZ£
                                    ^^^
<--ff-'v—•—^-T
..^f^-cT1-
  ^R
<_x
-^7/1  .
       'P  if1

-------
                                           tJ.Jb.ST
...  -     ~        •      .            / H^X
i-f.  cvi.«n(-ry;  ~_  s-,.,n.r..    -      /Cy      ,,G    .ca?-    'IV:
Dallas,,  -exo,   75270         H     ^,C5^     -I
D«r K,.  S.ott,:               \4  ^  ^*   ^


t.i.ov- of -i  fletfcr- i-ynt-Kri) ir*  -i-hg vJll^f.o'Tf  lakevlew:


     of -om/Arte^a?  io^^al^biia'asFel-^  °the
     ;'^o»t  flsl-iv,;.; quality  ,;f ^ Hitl.l'SI:o;jlK
     pur.1. f l.c;r'-i o^ of "the pfflup-nt  li^  bp'cvi "
     PWeiMo.fi So -of  -llow For  1-y.y: cnl 'humm
     erroro n^d  r.vr.-.-n.-jw of  -M-ie  r:y;;te;.i tine to

     Furt)ier:..:cu-oj'   ' !.\-;  firic  •••' clil:u-3-"p  :•.:•-. n
     ?ife"rric1'rivv  :ls "xi-rc isly t.)-:.l.e t0 flrh  (<-:.0i,t)


     pl.oi-it  (Gcrurrjtc  fi-or." Bu'l'l^SViaMln viMch'iicrr;
 3)  '^Vnno"3^'1  i''^1'11'10"  !..
     "unbr"~   r f  ''"""^'ly ';xr,;>e
     W"«L  *>  -"T rll"2 fol>  s
     i  or if ?       °CV1  V"ry li
     ilor fl^rt^- <-:io_.Bar* yenr.

f  ^rr-?"^,U!*-'-V of , Saw5
      '-  f'.i-t  i-^o rjPTrelpnRI-n of  t-
                                               by
                                      Pystera will
                                       '
                                                                                                       EPA RESPONSE
          An advantage of the aerated lagoon system is reli-
ability and resistance to shock loadings.   The design lagoon
detention time is 48 days and lagoon effluent is followed by
further clarification and filtration to meet very stringent
effluent standards.   The chance of drastic failure of the
treatment system is  remote.
          The alternatives of disinfection with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5.  It is
emphasized that if chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
will be required to  protect the trout.   Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are  being further evaluated.  Ozonation is
a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the  design, economics,  application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
Implementation of either process will protect the important
trout fishery.   Because of new developments in these areas,
final selection of the process will not be determined until
detailed Step 2 planning and design.  In cithor case, design
and operation will achieve strict conformant- to both State
and Federal water quality standards.
          As discussed in Section 3.3,  the estimated capital
costs savings by connecting to the Bull Shoals system would be
about $50,000.   This does not consider the delay and adminis-
trative costs for the town of Bull Shoals whose system is near
construction.  Serious reservations have also been expressed
by the Arkansas Department of Public Health concerning crossing
the White River with a raw sewage line.
          As pointed out in the EIS, the system is designed to
serve an initial population equivalent of more than 1,350,
including Edgewood Bay, Leisure Hills,  Bull Shoals State Park,

-------
                         EPA RESPONSE
-i-.,-i"r?  over l6o  vncf.™*  T.O+SJ

5_)  _I object  F*-rp">iou?lj'  J-oi.1£';i"n  r^r
^-'-e'l'ss..-! ^  s^-^isr  5-"T:*p^ -'h:'.c'-" o  '•'••-'
.li.'rtif;^"^ fro" * he" r '•-'- -"'''•> -iir>+-  of"bo?.3
(sy: .^•'•'.•"g.'.poll'Jti.y c?-T"ct ts  "rS^nbll
^ o o*1 o"i cfi.  Ojf ooT^inZ^''"I ^^ c' e1^ ri ty  ~T
the Lakeview Recreation Area, and an allowance for  seasonal
tourist use.  EPA believes that the most practical  and  cost-
effective solution to the problem for the entire community is
the proposed project as described in the Final EIS.
          The 1978 special census data was not available  for
inclusion for the Draft EIS, however, it has been incorporated
in the Final EIS in Section 5.4.la.  It is concluded  that the
Draft EIS population projection for Lakeview is still reasonable.
          Results of investigations of pollution, public
health and development density are discussed in Section 2.1,
2.2, and 2.3.

-------
August 25, 1978
Richard A. Dean
305 N. Washington Ave
Fayetteville, Arkansas
72701
 Clinton B. Spotts
 United States Environmental
     Protection Agency
 1201 Elm Street
 Dallas, Texas
 75270
 Dear Sin
      This letter is in response to the town meeting in Lakeview,
 Arkansas, on August 21, presided over by EPA officials to  review
 the recent EIS for the proposed sevage treatment system.   My wife
 and I are the owners of the property in the vicinity of Lakeview,
 where the proposed sewage treatment plant  is to be located.   Je
 do not favor the precise location of the plant as presented in
 the studies prepared by Engineering Services.  There has been no
 official recognition of a critical incompatibility of land use in
 the immediate area.
      When the offer and acceptance for the property were made in
 November, 1977, I did not know about the proposed sewage treatment
 system.  The land had been on the market for over a year,  to sell
 at a price obviously intended for a more intensive use than as
 agricultural land.  We purchased the property for the purpose of
 developing the 722-acre tract into a residential community.  It
 should have come to the attention of Engineering Services  that this
 land would not remain in agricultural use, and that any treatment
 system selected would need to be compatible with the adjacent land's
 probable course of development.  The present selection of  the treat-
 ment, plant itself—not just its location—simply does not  belong in
 a;large residential area, but rather on  open agricultural  land ranoved
 from housing or commercial development.
      The precise location has already been altered by Engineering
 Services, when it was learned that sites of significant archeological
 interest had been discovered on the property.  Concerning  these sites,
 we have proposed that excavations be undertaken between now and the
 time construction begins on the new treatment plant, whether or not
                                                         EPA RESPONSE

                                            A discussion of the effects of the proposed new real
                                    estate development in relation to  the wastewater system has
                                    been added as Section 5.4.3.2d.

-------
                                                               page two
the plant's location  is  affected.  We  are interested  in preserving
the archeological remains  from privately funded development, which
would not be hindered by the new legislation protecting national
historic  and archelogical sites.  With the help of some private
funds, Jsuch excavation work" would most likely be performed by a
college or university archeological team, in accordance with mini-
mum standards set by  the Arkansas Archeological Survey or any other
public agency.
     Also, we share the  concern of those in the Lakeview-Mountain
Home area about the potential pollution of the White  River.  Every
step should be taken  to  minimize both  chemical and thermal pollution
resulting from waste  disposal, to which the water life, notably the
trout population, would  be sensitive.   We have wondered why no
studies were undertaken  to determine the feasibility  of methane
conversion, as a potential" primary or  secondary power source for
the plant, as well as the recycling of waste material into organic
fertilizer.  There have  been a few notable experiments in the U.S.  in
recent yearsiihvolvihg aetnane and/or fertilizer production in the
solid waste disposal  cycle, as part of a national effort to reduce
unnecessary energy consumption, as well as high levels of pollution
into our  lakes and streams.  Since the White River has. a sensitive
ecology,  and since it is a great natural resource, here is a substan-
tial opportunity for  the EPA to support a less conservative approach
based on  radical new  technologies, where the recycling of energy
from solid wastes would  not only benefit the local area, but also
other ecologically sensitive areas where similar projects are slated
for the future.  A feasibility study may well prove a recycling
system to be economically viable in the long term—not just as a
more responsible means to achieving a  balanced ecology.

                                                         Sincerely,
                                                        S?~*-^
                                                         Richard A. Dean
                      EPA RESPONSE

         EPA encourages and supports proper preservation of
the  archeological remains from private development, but  has no
jurisdiction in this matter.  Coordination with the Arkansas
Archeological Survey is suggested.
         EPA agrees and steps have been taken to minimize any
adverse impacts to the White River.
         Methane gas recovery is  an established process at
many large wastewater treatment plants.  Analyses of methane
gas  recovery from trickling filter sludge at Lakeview indicates
that the amount of excess gas recovered would be small  (about
270,000 BTU/day or the equivalent  of less than 2 HP).   An
anaerobic digestion system required to produce the gas  would
cost approximately $40,000 and much of the gas produced would
be required for heating the digester.  Proper digestion and
gas  production is a sensitive operational process so operating
Costs would also increase.  It is  concluded -that methane gas
recovery is not cost-effective because of the small amount of
gas  produced, added capital expense, added operational  costs,
and  operational difficulties.
         Fertilizer recovery is also of secondary significance
and  doubtful feasibility at Lakeview.  The small quantity of
waste, low nutrient content of domestic wastewater sludges,
added processing costs, and lack of known demand or likely
areas of application would be major disadvantages.  Methane or
fertilizer recovery from waste sludge would not have any
effect on improving effluent quality, but are related to
resource utilization.  Although EPA endorses the general
concept of waste resource utilization, such systems do not
appear justified in regard to the  Lakeview project.

-------
                                                August 26, 1978
 Mr. John C. White,  Regional  Administrator
 United States Environmental  Protection Agency
 First International Building
 1201 Elm Street
 Dallas, Texas  75270
 Dear Mr. White;

      I would  like  to  take  this  opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental

 Impact Statement for  Lakeview,  Arkansas WasteWater Treatment Facilities .  .  . Grant

 #0-05-0441-01-0.

      I would  also  like  to  bring forth the statements I made in my letter  to  Mr.

 Clinton B. Spotts  of  June  18, 1977.   Of which I requested a reply, but have  not

 as of this date received such ...  at that time I stated,  quote "As a member of  the

 Arkansas Parks & Tourism Commission,  I feel that I should inform you that we

 (Department of Parks  &  Tourism)  now have our own treatment plant and system, which

 has been in operation for  over  one  year.  This is not to say we would not use the

 proposed system, however,  we have not made plans to do such either", end of  quote.

 Please note that similar comments were made by Richard Bavies, Director Arkansas

 State Parks of January  25,  1977, which is part of your draft.

      I also stated in the  same  letter .  . . quote "In reference to the same  line  . .

 the proposed  line would cut through  our playground area, aircraft hangers, and tie

 down area, etc., for  our resort  operation.   In addition,through land that we are now

 developing in our resort facility.   In addition  to this, we are now working on our

 own system that is similar to the Bull Shoals Park System to handle the sewage, etc.

 for our resort ..." end of quote.   I  bring these comments up again,  because of

 the quotes on page vi,  item D.

•itnn\ Whiti- liit'.-r Kf\nrt/fjii.:i'i'ii-if. Aii-,ui\.n, 7.'i, i?,''r<-l,-t,hon,- '•<)!- t >M,YA?                     // .,,/>  ,„ r • t • /' t 1

-------
                                                August 26, 1978

   PAGE 2

        In reference to Exhibit 5, the chart shows Gaston's Resort as a problem.

   However,  I would like to make you aware, that we are not aware of any problems.

   As a matter of record the Baxter County Sanitarian has reviewed our system, and

   stated  we had no problems.  In 1977 I requested his opinion as if we should con-

   tinue use of our present systems or continue our plans for a treatment system.

   His feelings were that our present system was excellent and we needed no change.

   The reason being the large track of land we have for our system-and the soil in

   our area.  Thus I would like to request your source of information in reference

   to our  facilities on Exhibit 5.

        Exhibit 12 shows the proposed line running south of the Gaston Road, through

   our playground area, tie down area and land we are using in our facilities.  My

   question is once again why . . . why not follow the roadway?  Thus saving the  legal

   and right-of-way cost that would come about.

        In addition I have very strong feelings that the discharge from the proposed

   plant should not be placed directly into White River.  Not only because of the prob-

   lems that could come about . . . however equally important the impact such would have

   on the  tourism industry ... if nothing else this is very poor public relations.

   Since the Bull Shoals State Park  system, and that of the City of Bull Shoals will

   be or are doing such, perhaps the Bull Shoals Lake would be better use.

        Once again, I would .like to state as I did in 1977, I do not mean the above

   as a negative comment towards a system.  Our resort facilities is worth approximately

   three million dollars, we employ 69 people, and do an annual business of 1.5 million
                          EPA RESPONSE

           This correction has been made to Exhibits 5 and  6.


           The  alignment of the sewer in the Gaston Road  area
will  be  altered to avoid the playground and aircraft hangar
and tie  down areas.
          Effects of the White  River  and  Bull  Shoals Lake
discharge alternatives are discusssed in  Sections 3.4d, 5.2.4,
and 5.3.5.  Discharge to Bull Shoals  Lake was  not selected
because of the need for expensive nutrient removal treatment,
proximity to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and
nearby residential areas, discharge to high quality contact
recreation waters, and disadvantages  in serving areas below
the dam.
Caston's White River Remrt/Lakevi,™, Arkaruti 71642/Telcphono 501-4)1-5202
                                                                     It costs no more to go first class.

-------
                                              August 26, 1978
PAGE 3
dollars.  Thus I am aware that we of the area need a system, to maintain our growth

and area,  However, I sincerely feel that more study is needed to assure that we

obtain the right system . .  .  and clear the errors that the proposed system now

has.

     The report as many have pointed out, is in error.  I sincerely request your

reply, and in addition I assure you that I will be of whatever help and support

I can be.  Thank you, I await your early reply . . .
                                              Sincerely,
                                              GASTON'S WHITE RIVER RESORT
                                              Jim Gaston
JAG/ckr
Enc:

-------
                                                                                                      NO  EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
   MRS. H. K. 1
   KOUTC one, BOX 235
LAKeL»ieO>, A.RKANSXS 72642

-------
                         EPA RESPONSE

          The alternatives of disinfection with ozone or
chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5.   II is
emphasized that,  if chlorine is used, dcch lorincit ion of effluent
will be required  to protect trout.  Effective and economical
means for dechlorination are available, although operations
and reliability are being further evaluated.   Ozonation is
a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
developments in the design, economics, application, and
operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
Implementation of either process will protect the important
trout fishery.   Because of new developments in these areas,
final selection of the process will not be determined until
detailed Step 2 planning and design.   In either case, design
and operation will achieve strict conformance to both State
and Federal water quality standards.

-------


J#^

-------
Mr.  Clinton B. Spotts
U.S.  E.J^.A.
1201 film St.
Dallas,  Texas 75270
                                     E.  1,  Box 175
                                     Lakeview, Arkansas  72642
                                     August 28, 1978
                 Re:  Proposed Lakeview Area Sewer Project
Dear  Mr.  Spotts:

With  regard to the  above mentioned  sewer project,  1  would
like  to  express my  disapproval. I,  along with my wife  and
five  chidren, have  been a resident  of this area for  approx-
mately five years.  During this time we have been using a
septic system which functions adaquately.

Many  people move to this area for its rustic, natural  setting.
I feel the above mentioned project  would pave the  way  for
future growth and have  a negative impact on the natural
environment .

Hopefully, there can be some residential areas left  unspoiled
by the progress of  mankind.
                                   Sincerely
                                  • '. of the area.

-------
                       QND   Reolty
                                        NW Corner of Yellville Square
                        Larry  Evans
                        P. 0. Box 585
                        Yellville, Arkansas 72687
      Bus. Phone 501-449-4238


August 28, 1978
•ft
                              Mr. Clinton B. Spott.s
                              U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                              1201 Elm Street
                              Dallas, Texas  75270

                              Dear Mr. Spotts:

                                   As I understand,  the sewer treatment plant for
                              Lakeview, Arkansas, is going to be located in the
                              bottomland of the Partees'  homestead.  I sold this
                              land to Mr. Richard Dean for $1,280,000.00.

                                   This development  will be a 12 to 15 million
                              dollar development upon its completion and if the sewer
                              plant is permitted to  be located at its present proposed
                              location it would be very damaging to the resale of the
                              lots.

                                   I wish your department would consider moving the
                              sewer treatment plant  to the other side of Bruce Creek
                              because the growth of  Lakeview depends upon the develop-
                              ment of this land.  Lakeview can't grow in any other
                              direction because of government land and Bull Shoals Lake.

                                   If the treatment  plant is permitted to be located as
                              it  is proposed, the harm to Lakeview and to this develop-
                              ment would be in the millions of dollars.

                                                            Sincerely,

                                                            EVANS REALTY
                                                            Larry Evans
                              Enclosure
                                Topo Map

                              cc:  Mr. Richard' Dean
                                   305 N. Washington Avenue
                                   Fayetteville,  AR  72701
                                                      EPA RESPONSE


                                         A discussion of the effects of the proposed new

                                 development in regard to the wastewater system has been added
                                 as Section 5.4.3.2d.

                                         Disadvantages of the site across Bruce Creek are the
                                 added costs of an expensive structure to provide all-weather
                                 access, and lack of adequate suitable area for the proposed

                                 treatment plant.  EPA does not believe that Lakeview or EPA

                                 should bear added costs of a site across Bruce Creek to suit the

                                 newly proposed private development.  Lakeview has substantial

                                 growth potential in existing incorporated areas as well as the
                                 potential for annexation of areas to the northeast; therefore,

                                 growth does not necessarily depend on development of the
                                 unincorporated area south of Lakeview toward the White River.
                              LE/ad

-------
                    WILLIAM  H.  GUPPY
                    POWER  PLANT  CONSULTANT
                        August  28,  1978
     Mr. Clinton E. Spotts
     Enviornmental Protection Agency
     1201 Elm Street
     Dallas, Texas 75270

     Dear Mr. Spotts»

     At the public hearing  for  the  proposed Lakeview,  Arkansas
     sewage treatment plant  on  August  21,  1978,  I did  not have
     an opportunity to present  questions,  so I am submitting
     them to you as instructed  by Ms.  Diana Dutton.

     See attached sheet.
     Sincerely yours,
     cc The Baxter Bulletin
        Mountain Home, Arkansas  72653
Box 16C, Star Route 2
                          Norfork. Arkansas 72658
                                                      Phone (501) 499-7300

-------
                       WILLIAM  H.  GUPPY
                       POWER  PLANT  CONSULTANT

                   Lakeview Sewage  Disposal Plant
     Questions  for Open Hearing               August 21,  1978
1.  Is  chlorination and dechlorination the best  way to  treat sewage
    as  far as  effects  on the  environment are concerned?
2.  What happens if the dechlorination system  fails or  there is  an
    overdose of chlorine?
3.  Will the type of Chlorine planned  provide  a  hazard  to the
    community?                            ;
4.  The Environmental  Impact  Statement projects  3.000 people in
    •1995. Does this include the transients?
5.  What if the number is actually 6,000 on the  week of July ^ or
    at any other time?
6.  The Engineering study received 9/23/77 said  dechlorination
    would not  be necessary. Why was  the change made? How much
    will it affect the cost?
                                   ional Engineer
                                   shers
Box 16C, Star Route 2
                             Norfork, Arkansas 72658
Phone {501) 499-W98-
                                                     EPA  RESPONSE

                                       The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone  or
                             chlorine are discussed in Sections 3.4c and 5.3.5.   It is
                             emphasized that, if chlorine  is  used, dechlorination of effluent
                             will be required to protect trout.  Effective and economical
                             means for dechlorination are  available, although operations
                             and reliability are being further evaluated.  Ozonation is
                             a promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and furttier
                             developments in the design, economics, application,  and
                             operation of ozonation systems are currently in progress.
                             Implementation of either process will protect the important
                             trout fishery.  Because of new developments in these areas,
                             final selection of the process will not be determined  until
                             detailed Step 2 planning and  design.  In either case,  design
                             and operation will achieve strict conformance to both  State
                             and Federal water quality standards.
                                       The equipment used  for dechlorination is proven and
                             similar to that used for chlorination.  Proper control and
                             operation will be necessary.   If dechlorination fails  or there
                             is an overdose of chlorine, detrimental effects on the trout
                             fishery could result.  Extreme adverse effects are not likely
                             because of the large dilution factor even during low flow
                             conditions.
                                       Gaseous chlorine is extensively used in water and
                             wastewater treatment and must be carefully handled.  Maximum
                             chlorine use will be about 30 Ib/day so that small (150 Ib)
                             chlorine cylinders should be  adequate.  With proper safety
                             precautions in design and operation, there will be minimal
                             hazard to operators or other  persons nearby.
                                       Allowance for transient population is included in
                             the 100 -gal/capita/day wastewater flow design estimate. Also,
                             an advantage of the aerated lagoon system is resistance to
                             shock loadings such as those  of  a peak summer weekend.
                                       Dechlorination was  required by the Arkansas  Department
                             of Pollution Control and Ecology in a letter of December 9,
                             1976 (see Appendix A) after their review of the Facility Plan
                             and Environmental Assessment.  The change was made because of
                             the high quality of the White River and the trout fishery.
                             Dechlorination equipment is similar to chlorination  equipment
                             and a dechlorination system is estimated to cost about $15,000.

-------

/&
                                  *4z w
                                                                                                   EPA RESPONSE
          It is recognized that the monthly charge will  cause
financial difficulty for some individuals and families as
discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c.   However,  there would also be
substantial  economic as well as environmental costs associated
with continued use of septic tank systems as discussed in
Section 3.2.  Without the project, increased septic tank
system problems, water quality degradation, and public health
problems can be expected.

-------

--J^

                         EPA RESPONSE

          State regulations require that "All premises shall
be connected to a sanitary sewer when within 300 feet and
available to said premises so that a connection can be made
without crossing another person's property..."

-------

ij s&JZ&fa- Mfl^.
       /     '
                    s._.     .. ,  '           s
         J...


                                                                                                               EPA RESPONSE
          Estimated project costs and the monthly charge to
residents are presented in Section 4.5.   It is recognized that
the monthly charge would cause financial difficulties for some
individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
however, there would also be substantial economic as well as
environmental costs associated with continued use of septic
tank systems as discussed in Section 3.2.

-------
  W. G. Kuschel
Lalccview, Arkansas 72642
NO  EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
                            (/
                                       9.S   /I1? 2
 /

-------
                                                          Lakeview,  Arkansas
                                                          August 28, 1978
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Regional Cordinator
First International Building
1201 Elm St.
Dallas, Texas ?52?0

Dear Mr. Spottsi
On August 21, 1978 a meeting was held in the Community Building
Lakeview, Arkansas to review and discuss the Impact Statements of the
EPA relative to the proposed waste water disposal system for this area.
As a resident of Edgewood Bay, which may be included in the plan, I
attended the meeting.

As a result of the information presented at that time along with what
was learned by reading the Impact Statement, certain questions arise
with respect to the need, cost, feasibility, and even desirability
of a sewer system for this area. Let me consider each of these items
seperately.

HEED

Admittedly some of the septic systems in our area, have caused trouble
but there is reason to believe that in many instances the difficulty
can be traced to either improper installation initially or to poor or
inadequate maintenance over the years. We have lived in our home about
seven and one-half years and have experienced no trouble whatsoever
with our septic tank. I know too that none of my four immediate neighbors
has had any difficulty. As a matter of fact the Impact Statement reports
moderate difficulty with residential installations and serious problems
with commercial systems. This is understandable. Inadequate laterals
and absorption fields combined with the practice of black topping.
over the drainage fields contribute to the problems experienced by
some of the motels, restaurants and other commercial establishments
in this area.

COST

The intial cost of the sewer system is subject to question. The actual
cost to each user is certainly optimistically low. The Impact Statement
reports that some 1300 .people would use the proposed sewer system.
This is more fictitious than real. The figures Includes visitors to
Bull Shoals State Park and the Lakeview Recreation Area. It is a matter
of public record that the agencies of these facilities have made no
commitment to join the sewer system. There are other questionable
figures included in the total indicated.
                         EPA RESPONSE


          EPA recognizes there are septic  tank  systems  operating
satisfactorily without effluent  surfacing,  however,
this does not alter the fact that a significant number  of
systems have failed and ground water degradation is  evident,
comprising health and pollution  problems.   It is likely that
many septic tank systems which have previously  operated
satisfactorily will fail in the  future.  EPA believes that  the
most practical and cost-effective solution  to the problem for
the entire community is the proposed project as  described in
the Final EIS.
          Revised population projections are discussed  in
Section 5.4.1.a.  Neither the Corps of Engineers or  Bull
Shoals State Park have been ruled out as possible users of  the
proposed system, therefore, it is appropriate to include them
at this stage.  If they do not participate, the  monthly user
cost for residents in Lakeview will be higher as  discussed  in
Section 3.4.e.

-------
FEASIBILITY
                                                              (Page 2)
The sewer system proposed for Edgewood Bay is of the gravity type.
The terrain of this area is such that to construct such a system would
be little less than a monumental engineering task. The amount of blasting
of rock that would be required and the dept'of the trenches  to be dug
would present serious problems to say nothing of the impact  that it
would have on the environment.

DESIRABILITY

Much of the sewer lines would be laid in solid rock trenches with
little or no ground cover to filter sewer line leakage. Since this
line would run along the Governament strip and close to Bull Shoals  Lake
there is good reason to believe that contamination of the lake might
be expected.

On August 25, 1978 my wife and I drove to Cotter, Arkansas ( about
18 miles from Lakeview ) and had lunch at the White Sands restaurant.
Knowing that Cotter was in the process of completing its sewer system
we made inquiry as to what the residents of the area thought of it.
We had occasion to talk to or be involved in conversation with eight
different people six of whom were residents of the area and  two of
whom were workmen on the sewer project. The six people that  had comments
to make said in effect that the sewer system was a disaster. Their
advice was to avoid sewers if at ail possible. The two workmen when
asked how the project was progressing said that the treatment plant
had again been tested but that it still remained inoperable.

At this time I would like to raise the question as to why alternatives
to a sewer system might not be considered. For example much  of the area to
be served by the proposed waste water disposal system is undeveloped
or at least is comprised of vacant lots. Would it not be advisable
to increase the lot sizes per household ? This would not necessarily
be a loss to the land developers in that the cost of the lot would
be based upon its size. It would mean'xeffect fewer homes per square
mile which might even be preferable for more reasons than one.

In any event after all is said and done I find that I have some grave
misgivings about the efficacy of a sewer system as proposed  for the
Lakeview area. Sewers are excellent if their installation does not
create insurmountable problems of construction, cost, operation and
maintenance. Are sewers the only answer to waste disposal in this area ?
Possibly but let's be intelligent enough to way the pros and the cons
before saying that there is no other way to go.

For the record just a little about my background. I was a registered
professional engineer in the State of Illinois, prior to my  retirement
in 1971. My background is in Chemistry. Undergraduate work was done
at Lewis Institute ( now part of Illinois Institute of Technology )  and
my graduate work in Chemistry was done at the University of  Chicago.

                                                      Sincerely,
                                                     Frank P.  Mueller
                                                                                                                 EPA RESPONSE
                                                                                                  A substantial  allowance for costs associated with
                                                                                        blasting is included in  revised project cost estimates.   Blasting will
                                                                                        generally be required in areas on steeper slopes.
                                                                                                 As discussed in Section 5.2.5 and  in  response  to

                                                                                       A. W. Ueitkarop's comnents on page 109, little exfiltration should
                                                                                       occur.
                                                                                            "s   The Cotter-Gassvilie system is nearing start-up and
                                                                                       has not experienced any major problems during construction.
                                                                                                 Alternatives for upgraded septic tank systems including
                                                                                       expanded lots are discussed in Section 3.2.
                                                                                                 EPA believes that the proposed project is the most
                                                                                       reliable and cost-effective solution to the problem for the
                                                                                       Lakeview community,  and will  also result in the least adverse
                                                                                       environmental  impacts over the long term.

-------
UAJ%  o-A  ^f£<~
                         EPA RESPONSE
          Noting that some systems have not been installed
properly does not alleviate the problem.   Even properly installed
and operated systems will  contribute to water quality degradation
i.e., nitrate, chloride) and many can be expected to experience
absorption field failure in the future.   EPA believes that the
most practical and cost-effective solution to the problem for the
entire community is the proposed project as described in the Final
EIS.

-------
                      ,^   ;^
              tfV  '
-------

-------
August 29, 1978
P.O. 3ox 93
Lakeview, Arkansas 72642
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Clinton B.Spotts
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1201 Sim Street
Dallas, Texas  75270

        lie: Lakeview, Arkansas .Waste Disposal Proposal

Dear Sir:

Progress in the commercial portions of Lakeview,Arkansas
will not be able to operate or any new operations can be
started unless the waste disposal, now under study, can be
installed in Lakeview. Large resorts and some other operations
are in dire stress for waste disposal through their septic
tanks now.

Also, in the subdivision where I live, iidgewood 3ay, the
Arkansas Department of Health advised us to boil our water
a couple of years ago until we added ohlorinators to our
community wells. This shows that we have saturation froc
septic tanks already. As more hones are built it is going
to ;;et worse.

Therefore, I aa in full favor of the installation of a-waste
disposal unit in the Lakeview, Arkansas area.
Copy: City  of  Lakeview, Mayors  Office

-------
                         j^-^w''^-^^r7
                               0   ,     si/^-i-'S  .Tri*'-- <•' £<. '
Oii.'-Oi.-J  -4 >•£,• ftS."/  •••<.'&*& ' -*•' -'•••••>'(       !/
^,^,f  *- ^  -^ ^-<'  "^;.^;,.
 /          ,                          „••;,. ^.-^•"•«t4
                                              I^-'i
                           ,^~'-<- S^* '
 ?/  ^:y-A- '-'-^ <-"~~°  -A"'
        r^  „     ,.,'••*
                                      J
^" O.-W
                  LXsl*?~iL-t
      ^A^-^'' -'  /
                  -/ x/ ^ /.^-
                                                                           EPA RESPONSE

                                                             EPA recognizes there  are septic tank  systems operating
                                                    satisfactorily without effluent surfacing; however, this does
                                                    not alter the fact that a significant number of systems have
                                                    failed and ground water degradation is evident, comprising
                                                    health and pollution problems.   It is likely that  many septic
                                                    tank  systems that have previously operated satisfactorily will
                                                    fail  in the future.  EPA believes that the most practical and
                                                    cost-effective solution to the problem for the entire community
                                                    is the proposed project as described  in  the Final  EIS.
                                                             Estimated  project costs and the monthly  charge to
                                                    residents are presented in Section 4.5.   It is recognized that
                                                    the monthly charge would cause financial  difficulties  for some
                                                    individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
                                                    however,  there would also be substantial  economic  as  well as
                                                    environmental  costs  associated with  continued  use of  septic
                                                    tank systems  as discussed in Section 3.2.

-------
                          CERTIFIED MAIL — Return Receipt Requested
MARVIN L. COLE
ARKANSAS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER #2498
ARKANSAS REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR #558
                          MARVIN L  COLE &  ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                         ASSOCIATES:
                                         LYNN NELSON
                                         R. SCOTT JACKSON, JR.
 OFFICE: HIGHWAY 14 NORTH
 YELLVU.LE, ARKANSAS 72687
       Box 634
YELLVILLE, ARKANSAS 72687

 September 1,  1978
PHONE 501-449-6919
NIGHT: 50-1-449-6541
      Mr.  Clinton B. Spotts
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      1201 Elm Street
      Dallas, Texas  75270

      Dear Mr. Spotts:

          The services of this firm have been retained by Mr,  Richard Dean
      for the development of 722.671 acres of land  south of Lakeview, Arkansas.
      The proposed treatment plant for the Lakeview project (Wastewater
      Treatment Facilities Grant No. C-05-0443.-01-0)  is to be  located on this
      property.

          Before preparing the final -environmental  impact statement,  it is
      respectfully requested that the following  items be considered and included
      in the report:

          a) The land usage south of Lakeview and specifically in the vicinity
          of the proposed plant has changed from agricultural  to residential.

          b) The area immediately adjacent to the proposed plant will be sub-
          divided' and developed as residential area.   Appearance and nuisance
          factors  (noise and odor) must now be considered^  The availability of
          river frontage property is limited and is selling at a premium.

          c) Total development will consist of approximately 1200 family units
          within five years, with 400 of these units  being built on the river
          by the time the wastewater treatment facilities are  complete.  This
          will change, the usage and projected revenue figures  for the project.

          d) Mr. Dean is an heir to Dean's Poods, Inc., and has the financial
          capability to develop the area as planned.

          d) This is almost the only area toward which Lakeview can expand when
          considering the growth boundary already established  by government
          property.
                                                                                         EPA  RESPONSE

                                                                          A discussion of the effects  of the proposed new
                                                                development in relation to the wastewater system has been
                                                                added as Section 5.4.3.2.d.
                                                                           Lakeview has substantial growth potential  in existing
                                                                incorporated  areas as well as the potential  for  annexation of
                                                                areas to the  northeast;  therefore, growth does not necessarily
                                                                depend on  development of the unincorporated  area south of
                                                                Lakeview toward the White River.

-------
Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
Page 2
September 1, 1978
                                                                                                                      EPA  RESPONSE
    f) In view of the recent West Plains,  Missouri,  experience,  the
    possibility of polluting white River with a lagoon-type  system
    should be considered.

    It is recommended that a trickling-filter plant  followed by  disinfection
and sand filtration be used in lieu of an  aerated  lagoon  (Page 26 of  the
Draft E.I.S.).

    It is assumed that the engineering feasibility study  considered
methane conversion and recycling process as part of  the plant features.
With the additional load in the very near  future,  it is suggested that
this process be reconsidered.

    A copy of the boundary survey performed for Mr.  Dean  is  attached  for
your reference.  Lot layouts and design schematics of the proposed homes
are available for review if desired.

                                   Respectfully,

                                   MARVIN  L. COLE  &  ASSOCIATES,  INC.
cc: Mr. Richard Dean
    305 N.  Washington
    Fayetteville,  AR 72701
          Unlike the area associated with the lagoon failure
at West Plains, Missouri, the proposed Lakeview plant site has
favorable geological characteristics with regard to lagoon
construction and integrity.   The lagoons will also be lined to
prevent leakage.
          Disadvantages of a trickling filter system are  less
effective BOD removal and higher capital cost.  Odors and
(filter) flies are also greater problems with trickling
filters.  The trickling filter system would  have the advantage
of using less land than aerated lagoons.  Trickling filters
and aerated lagoons are both resistant to shock loadings  and
relatively simple to operate.  On balance, EPA does not believe
that changing to a trickling filter system at Lakeview is
justified.
          As discussed in response to Mr. Dean's comments on
page 123, methane or fertilizer recovery do  not appear justified.

-------
 00:   r
~^W*^°
                                                            .'•  '%

                                                            '
                                                                                                                 NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY

                                                                     x

-------

-------
j^  USH^^O^vf°~ /" ^7
  ^L,  ^^^c^y^yi^^ +  <3<~~j6«^
 ^6^>^% — ^^ ^^_^
^^2.*^^
 ^ss^fi^>~y //*~^ s	,,       //
j. A^^ ^— ^f^ */a^rt3$
^CT^y ^— ^ ^ ^-^f-
££%&< ^TT  -*^?%£L
X-^^  ^r/.TTw^
                 EPA RESPONSE

       The Cotter-Gassville project is near start-up and
has not experienced major construction problems.  The alternatives
of disinfection with ozone or chlorine are discussed in Sections
3.4c and 5.3.5. It is emphasized that if chlorine is used,
dechlorination of effluent will be required to protect the
trout.  Effective and economical means for dechlorination are
available, although operations and reliability are being
further evaluated.  Ozonation is a promising alternative to
chlorine disinfection and further developments in the design,
economics, application, and operation of ozonation systems are
currently in progress.  Implementation of either process will
protect the important trout fishery. Because of new developments
in these areas, final selection of the process will not be
determined until detailed Step 2 planning and design.  In
either case, design and operation will achieve strict conformance
to both State and Federal water quality standards.
       EPA concurs and does not want to waste taxpayers'
money.

-------
                                      Lakeview, Ark.    /£
                                      Sept.  5, 1978    /V;
Mr. Clinton B- Spotts
U. S. Jiuv. Protection Agcy
1201 jilm St.,
Dallas, Tex. 75270


Dear Sir:
        .'•/HO
              I am a resident of Kdgewood Bay Subdivision  in Lakeview,
Ark.  and I am writing in regard to the proposed sewer  system  for
this area.

              I am deeply concerned about the effect  this  sewer  system
will have on this area, mainly the lake and the  White River.   According
to the proposed plan, the sewerage from ether subdivisions to  the  east
of us here will be routed right around the edge  of our  lake, about at
the high water line.  My concern is seepage from this line.  Couldn't
the main line be routed along the highway and only the  ones who  act-
ually live on the government strip have u line along  the roads there to
serve them?  I understand that there is always seepage  from these  lines
due to the way they are always put in, like field tile  and if  we should
have another high water year like we had two or  three years ago  the seepage
could easily find its way into the lake, couldn't it?  This lake makes
the area here and if something should pollute it there  just wouldn't be
anything valuable left for this area.  The same  can be  said for  the White
River.  It seems to me that simply because a few people have had problems
with their systems, due largely to wrong installation or usage,  why risk
everything for everyone else by having sewers running so close to the
lake?  If they really are necessary, which I seriously  doubt,  can't they
be put in a safer place?

               Another source of concern is the  cost  of the whole -thing.
As you know there are many retirees living in this area of Lakeview and
many widows who have a hard enough time making ends meat as it is. When
the town council members give us to understand this will only  amount
to something like ten dollars a month, I think they are deliberately
trying to fool the people.  Maybe city people can believe  it butt hose of
us who have lived through a similar experience in small towns  know how
much more you have to pay when they even add onto an  existing  sewer
system.  Most of us feel that we have already paid for  a system  when we
purchased our homes in the first place, in my case 7  years ago this month.
Why should we called upon to pay for another system.  Why  not  wait
until the area has «± least a thousand people or more before talking
sewers?  Right now the only people to really benefit  are  the real  estate
operators and the business people — the rest of us lose. My husband and
I have loved this area ever since we moved down  here  from  an Illinois
town where we both were born and lived most of our lives and now since
he is gone from me I would like to stay here, providing I  can  afford to,
but it is difficult enough as it is right now as my incoae is. just
half of what it was while he was living.  But I  love  it here and do
enjoy t.*is beautiful luke where I swim every day.
                                              Yours very truly,
                                                                 EPA  RESPONSE


                                                  As  discussed  in Section  5.2.5 and in the response to
                                       A. W. Weitkamp's  comments on  page  109,  little exfiltration should
                                       occur.
                                                 Estimated project costs and the monthly charge to
                                       residents are presented in Section 4.5.   It is recognized that
                                       the monthly charge would cause financial difficulties for some
                                       individuals and families as discussed in Section 5.4.3.1c;
                                       however,  there would also be substantial economic as well as
                                       environmental costs associated with continued use of septic
                                       tank systems as discussed in Section 3.2.
 fit/ 1,  Box 144
 Lakeview,  Ark. 72642
-"^  a'-c;--f

-------
                                        Area Code  501-431-5343
RICHARD B. MORRIS

Bay  Ridge  Rd.
Edgewood Bay
lakeview, Ar.  72642
                           September 5, 1978
       Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
       United States Environmental Protection
                                       Agency
       1201 Elm St.
       Dallas, Texas  75270
 Technical

Photography
       Dear Sir:
                        Re: Proposed Lakeview, Ark.
                            Sewer System
            At  the recent hearing on the Proposed
        Lakeview, Ark. Sewer System, Mr. Emerson Stephens
        made certain  statements regarding the writer1s
        septic system.

            I wish to emphasize that Mr. Stephens evidently
        does not know the difference between routine
        maintenanne and malfunction.  He never personally
        investigated  w&at was being done on my property
        and he based  his remarks entirely on hearsay.

            My  system was, and is, working perfectly; but
        after 10 years operation, 1 was having the tank
        pumped out, some of the lateral ditches made wider
        and the  clay  tite replaced with perforated plastic
        pipe in  accordance with updated specifications
        to insure that it continues to operate satisfactory
        under an anticipated increased photographic pro-
        cessing  load.
                                     EPA RESPONSE


                        This information is noted and appreciated.
                            Very truly yours,

-------
THE
                  COMPANY
    1409 Post Oak Road
MOUNTAIN HOME, ARK. 72653
                                           DEPCtJOAOil FOR OVER 30 WARS
                                              ADVERTISING SPECIALTIES
                                       CALENDARS • BUSINESS GIFTS • SALES AWARDS
                                       DECALS » SIGNS  •  COMMERCIAL FLOOR MATS
                                                Sept. 5,  1978
       UHITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
         Clinton B. Spotts
         1201  Elm Street
       DALLAS,  TEXAS  75270

          Dear Mr. Spotts:
                     It  is imparative that  your agency take  action
       in the  interests of environment and the effects on wild-
       life and residents of the  area.
                     On  the information available  it, is my
       personal request that ozone be used instead  of chlorine.
                     Further, if  effluent would be directed  to
       Bull Shoals Lake it would  be highly desirable from the
       standpoint of temperature  and dilution.  Except for
       speed boating and skiing  the lake is not used for any
       purpose that the river  is  not used  for.
                     All precaution should  be taken  to prevent
       flood polution and unintentional [or intentional]
       mismanagement .
                                     1409  Post Oak  Rd.
                                    MOUNTAIN HOME,  ARK. 72653
                                                                                                            EPA RESPONSE

                                                                                              The alternatives of disinfecting with ozone or
                                                                                     chlorine are discussed  in Sections 3.4c  and 5.3.5.  It is
                                                                                     emphasized that,  if  chlorine is used, dechlorination of effluent
                                                                                     will be required  to  protect trout.   Effective and economical
                                                                                     means for dechlorination are available,  although operations
                                                                                     and reliability are  being further evaluated.  Ozonation is a
                                                                                     promising alternative to chlorine disinfection and further
                                                                                     developments in the  design, economics, application, and operation
                                                                                     of ozonation systems are currently in progress.  Implementation
                                                                                     of either process will  protect the important trout fishery.
                                                                                     Because of new developments in these areas, final selection
                                                                                     of the process will  not be determined until detailed Step 2
                                                                                     planning and design.  In either case, design and operation
                                                                                     will achieve strict  conformance to both  State and Federal
                                                                                     water quality standards.

                                                                                              Effects of the White River and Bull  Shoals Lake
                                                                                     discharge alternatives are discussed in Sections 3.4d and
                                                                                     5.2.4.   Discharge to Bull Shoals  Lake was not selected because
                                                                                     of the need for expensive nutrient  removal treatment,  proximity
                                                                                     to the heavily used Lakeview Recreation Area and nearby resi-
                                                                                     dential  areas,  discharge to high  quality contact recreation
                                                                                    waters,  and disadvantages in serving areas below the dam.

                                                                                              The proposed project is designed to  be reliable as
                                                                                     discussed in Section 5.2.5.
                                                                                              On-site system alternatives are thoroughly discussed
                                                                                     in Section 3.2.

-------
CLAUDE W. SHONKWILER

    MAYOR
  EARL G. WHIPPLE
    RECORDER
                           ALDERMEN

                        LOIS HARDY
                        MELVIN A. LECHTENBERGER
                        WILLIAM G. KUSCHEL
                        ORRIN J. CHICK, SR.
                        JAMES J. ZlTNIK
     TOWN  OF  LAKEVIEW
       POST OFFICE Box ISO
LAKEVIEW, BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS
             72642
                                             September 5,
       Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
       United States Environmental Protection Agency
       1201 Elm Street
       Dallas, T-exas   75270

       Dear Mr. Spotts,

              The public meeting held in Lakeview, Arkansas, August  21,
       1978 afforded the people of the Lakeview Area an opportunity  to
       speak for or against the Environmental Impact Statement  as  it re-
       lates to the waste water treatment program for this Area.

              One of the speakers who spoke  against the BIS and the  pro-
       posed waste water treatment program was  Mr. Robert E. Lee who made
       a statement that "there are 550 lots  in  Lakeview."  This statement
       is not true and I should like to present the following facts  taken
       from pla£s officially registered in the  off ice of the Baxter County
       Clerk, Mr. Arnold Knight.

              There is a total of fourteen plats  including the  Lakeview
       plat plus the Leisure Hills area information as furnished by  the
       Association and certified to by two officers of the Association.

              Attached to the copies of the  plats is an official map of
       the incorporated area of Lakeview showing  the locations  of  the
       various subdivisions.  I hope this information will assist  you as
       you study the locations of the various subdivisions comprising tho
       proposed treatment area.
                                                                                                                  NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
               Subdivisions

            Crestwood
            Wonderland Estates
            Forest  Shores
            Devonshire Lakes
            Glen Cove
            Hudson
            Edgewood Bay
            Trimble Plats
            Lakeview
            Penrod
            Lakeview Annex
            Leisure Hills
No. of lots

    63
    99
   158
   201
     6
   2l».6
    27
    96
    11
    69
                                                 (including 5l  apts.  and
                                                     18  lots with  9 homes)
                 Total lots

-------
                      TOWN OF LAKEVIEW
                            .     „                     MCLVIN A. l-CCHTCNBCnOCR
                        POST OFFICE BOX 150                WILLIAM a. KUSCHCI-
                 LAKEVIEW, BAXTER COUNTY, ARKANSAS
                             72642
                                             Spotts—EPA   Page 2


       There are 795 lots in Lakeview Town--not 550 as Mr. Lee
reported.  These are detailed as follows:

                   Lots In Lakevlew Town

     Subdivision               No. of lota

     Glen Cove                    201
     Devonshire Lakes             158
     Penrod                       131).
     Lakeview                      96
     Lakeview Annex                32
     Forest Shores                 81).
     Crestwood                     63
     Trimble Flats                 27
              Total lots          795
       I hope these plats and this Information will assist you
In your deliberations relating the Lakeview1s need for a waste
water treatment program.
                                         Mayor

-------
                      ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC.
max hall, p.a., r.l.s.,
 president
jorry martin, p.e.,
 vice-president
                                      214 west emma
                                  springdale, arkansas 72764
                                   telephone 501-751-8733
                                            Nbverttoer 17,  1978
                                                                      e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
                                                                        senior vice-president
                                                                      gary I. king,
                                                                        secretary-treasurer
NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Roger N. Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates,
800 ftorth 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, M3  63101

Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
                                      Inc.
         letter is in response to your letter dated October 16, 1978, addressed to Mr.
    Max "all offthis firm concerning the Lakeview, Arkansas Wastewater Treatment
    Facilites.  I will answer your questions in the sane order and using tfie aaoe num-
    bering system as* in your letter:

         1.  The revised oast estimates are attached hereto.  Please note that via nave
             inmilBHeafr tte eat inntyd quantity of rock. excavation to what MB cCTnrtrlpr
             should be the mmrtatqji for this project.  In preparing this resriaaiS oast
             estiMtte, MB have resiewed the cost of ttaa Bull Shoals syst» aaft otter
             reoaatly bid systsiB in Northern Adcansas.

         2..  We £tel Tihe the iyj»r p«iMt^ for allowable infiltration of 100 cpVinch
             of p^e d»BBBi£er/teiJ« is reasonable and a 5Dod specification fbr.tt»B Lake-
             vie«r Sewer %stem.  Ml sewer pipe manufacturers claim that thptr pipe can
             easily mast tfie infiitratiaa allowance of 100 gpd/inch of pipe dtataeter/ini-Lai
             fllao, this i» the Mrimim allowable by the Arkansas Department of Health
             for PMC sewer pipe.  We pan see no reaacn to require another imt-ftrtal to
             meet a lesaer £?»ctfication.  Vfe have bia other projects with thia Infil-
             t-T7iHfi> requirement and have not received any questions or crepTainiEa from
             oontractors.  In our professional opinion, it makes good sense t» u*a this
             requirranent in the lakeview System and cannot understand vby it is being
             questioDed.
             We do not fXJBBiflR'r exdltration a potential problem given proper, construc-
             tion techniques and BDdern materialfl.  The pipe will be bedded with a
             Tiriniamt of 4-' of suitable material beneath the pipe and a root above the
             pipe.  It might he that we will want to use a sand or other snail particle
             size bedding material to tiese areas.
    services offered;  consulting engineers for civil engineering'projects, soil testing, munieiparwiork.
                 •  'feasibility studies, land pfenning, subdivisions, surveying

-------
Hoger N. Jungclaus
Page 2
November 17, 1978
     4.  It would be most difficult in our opinion to serve the Forest Shores and
         Leisure Hills areas without an additional pucrp station if the suggestion
         were followed.  We see no basis for the concern about the so-called "sink
         holes" and do not consider them an obstacle to the oontruction of the
         system.

     5-  There is no doubt that the proposed sewer in the Gaston Road area can be
         re-aligned and re-routed to avoid the objects mentioned.

     6.  We had previously investigated the probability of locating the treatment
         plant across Bruce Creek as proposed.  The main objection to this is lack
         of suitable access to the area.  An expensive structure would be required
         to provide the needed all-weather access.  "Die proposed treatment process
         will require a site of approximately eight (8) acres,  there does not appear
         to be adequate suitable area across Bruce Creek to meet this requirement.

         We did consider the trickling filter as an alternative in the facility
         plans and it did not prove the-Host costo-effective system.

     7.  The user charge planned for the Lakeview Sewer System IB based on the volume
         of wastewater discharged into the sytem.  Since there are no industrial users
         and the wastewater composition will be fairly miform from customer to
         customer, we feel like this is the most realistic approach.  Ifcwaver, if
         you assume that an average household in Lakeview would contribute in the
         range of 5,000 to 6,000 gallons of wastewater per month, the reiult would
         be very similar to that considered in the Draft ECS.   Therefore, we feel
         like the method of allocating cost contained in the Draft ETS is probably
         as reasonable and easily understood as any method for the preliminary
         stages of the project.
I trust that this will provide you with the information you need.   However, ifcttere
are any questions or if additional information is needed, please feel free to call
on me.
                                        Sincerely yours.
JWHiplc

Enclosure

cc:  Honomblg Claude Shonkwiler •
       Mayor, Lakeview
                                              W. Martin, P.E.

-------
     PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT

        LAKEVIEW,  ARKANSAS

          C-05-0441-01-0
      REVISED NOVEMBER, 1978
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Description
Aerated Lagoon
Pump Station
Clarifier
Sand Filters
Disinfection
Equipnent Building
Fencing
Approximate
Quantity
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
Lump Sum
2,500 lin.ft.
Unit
Price
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
L.S.
3.00 l.f.
Total Cost
$ 175,000.00
25,000.00
75,000.00
125,000.00
40,000.00
65,000.00
7,500.00
                                                    '^rOAri. C1ACI 4"if)r T
                                               ^tf  ^.o*wer^A Ti
-------
             PRELIMINARY ODST ESTIMATE

LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEM

                LAKEVIEW, ARKANSAS

                  C-05-0441-01-0
              REVISED NOVEMBER, 1978
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Slfl
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Description
12" Sewer
10" Sewer
8" Sewer
4" Sewer Service
Standard Sewer Manhole
Extra Depth Manhole
12" C.I- Sewer Pipe
10" C.I. Sewer Pipe
8" C.I. Sewer Pipe
6" Force Main
8" i'orce Main
Sewer Connection Wye
Highway Crossing
Rock Excavation
Bedding Material
Replace Paving
Class "A" Concrete
Class "B" Concrete
Lift Station
Approximate
Quantity
16,500 lin.ft.
22,000 lin.ft.
68,000 lin.ft.
7,500 lin.ft.
280 each
100 feet
800 lin.ft.
500 lin.ft.
2,000 lin.ft.
2,500 lin.ft.
8,800 lin.ft.
380 each
4 each
10,000 cu.yds.
10,000 cu.yds.
600 sq.yds.
75 cu.yds.
75 cu.yds
4 each
Treatment Plant
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST


Unit
Price
15.00 l.f.
12.00 l.f.
10.00 l.f.
5.00 l.f.
500.00 each
50.00 ft
20.00 l.f.
18.00 l.f.
15.00 l.f.
5.00 l.f.
8.00 l.f.
25.00 each
3,000.00 each
15.00 cu.yds.
7.00 cu.yds.
10.00 sq.yd.
150.00 cu.yd.
75.00 cu.yd.
Lump Sum
Lump Sum

Total Cost
$ 247,500.00
264,000.00
680,000.00
37,500.00
140,000.00
5,000.00
16,000.00
9,000.00
30,000.00
12,500.00
70,400.00
9,500.00
12,000.00
150,000.00
70,000.00
6,000.00
11,250.00
5,625.00
80,000.00
580,000-00
$ 2,436.275.00
(continued)

-------
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST   .... $ 2,436,275.00
        (from previous page)

       Contingency                  ....     240,000.00


TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST             .   .    .  .  . $ 2,676,275.00


Engineering Costs:

     •  Design                       .... $   150,000.00

       Construction Observation     ....     107,000.00"


Legal and Administrative Costs      ....       15,000.00

Land and Right-of-Way               ....       30,000.00

Interest During Construction        ....       50,000.00


TOTAL PEDOECT COST                  .... $ 3.,028,275.00

-------
October 16, 1978
                                                                                                                             NO EPA RESPONSE NECESSARY
Mr. Max Hall, President
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 W. Emma
Springdale, AK  72764

Dear Mr. Hall:

In responding to comments on the Draft EIS for Lakeview,  Arkansas  Waste-
water Treatment Facilities, your assistance in answering  the following
questions would be appreciated:

     1.   What arc the updated cost estimates for the project including
          dechlorination (or ozonation),  as well as inflation to the
          projected time of construction?  Particularly,  what are  any
          revised estimates for the collection system including the
          amount and cost of rock excavation, and costs of the various
          types of sewer line installations?  It has been suggested that
          comparative costs of the Bull Shoals'  system be considered in
          the update.

     2.   What is the design basis of the infiltration allowance of 100
          gpd/inch of pipe diameter/mile  compared to the  200 gallon
          criteria often used for new sewer pipe?

     3.   Should soil be recommended for  backfill around  the sewers in
          rocky areas near Bull Shoals Lake as a mitigative measure
          against exfiltration?

     4.   Please comment on the suggestion that the entire length  of the
          lakeshore collector be sloped toward Glen Cove  to avoid  crossing
          sink holes and reduce the length of force main  required  to
          reach the line on Highway 178.

     5.   Can the alignment of the proposed sewer in the  Gaston Rd. area
          be altered to avoid the playground and airplane hanger and
          tie-down areas at Gaston Resort?

     6.   What is the feasibility of locating the treatment plant  across
          Bruce Creek to reduce impacts on proposed residential development

-------
Mr. Max Hall, President
October 16, 1978
Page 2
          on and near the currently proposed plant site?  The developer
          has also suggested trickling filter rather than lagoon treatment
          as well as methane and fertilizer resource recovery.  Your
          comments?

     7.   The Draft EIS used a method of allocating user costs based
          upon the number of residential arid commmercial units (including
          individual motel units) and equivalents for the recreational
          areas.  Does this method reasonably reflect residential user
          cost estimates in view of the rate structure and cost recovery
          plans being considered for Lakeview?

Thank you for any assistance you can provide on these matters, and let
me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

SVEKDRUP & PARCEL AMD ASSOCIATES, Inc.
 H
Roger N. Jungclaus, PE
cc:-*"Mr. Paul Bergstrom, EPA

-------

-------
         LITERATURE CITED AND OTHER REFERENCES CONSULTED

AOU Check-list of North American Birds, American Ornithologists
  Union, Fifth edition, Port City Press, Inc., Baltimore, MD.,
  1957.

Arkansas Department of Health:
          , 1972;   "Septic Tank Systems," Bulletin No. 9.
          , 1977;   "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to
                      Sewage Disposal Systems and Installers,"
                      (as provided in Act 402 - Individual
                      Sewage Disposal Act of 1977).
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology:
            1977;   "Committee Chairman's Memorandum on EPA
                      Program Requirements, Memorandum No.  77-8,
                      Hannah, H.  G.,  August 22, 1977.
            1976a;  Water Quality Inventory Report.
            1976b;  White River Basin Plan, Section 303(e).
            1975;   Arkansas Water Quality Standards.
            1973;   Regulation 4 - To Require, a Disposal
                      Permit for Real Estate Subdivisions
                      in Proximity to Lakes and Streams in
                      Arkansas.
            1972;   Pollution Control Survey of Lakes  Norfork,
                      Bull Shoals and Greers Ferry.
Bailey, J.,  and Wallman, H.,  1971; "A Survey of Household
  Waste Treatment Systems,"  Water Pollution Control  Federation
  Journal,  p.  2349, December, 1971.
                            162

-------
Battelle's Columbus Laboratories, 1968; Water Quality Criteria
  Data Book Vol.  3. "Effects of Chemicals on Aquatic Life," U.S.
  Environmental Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control
  Research Series. EPA-18050 GWV05/71, May, 1971.

Bedinger, M.  S. and Sniegocki, R. T. , Summary Appraisals
  of the Nation's Groundwater Resources - Arkansas-White-Red
  Region, U.S.  Geological Survey Professional Paper, 813-H.

Black, J. D., 1940; The Distribution of the Fishes of Arkansas,
  unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

Brett, J. R., 1956; "Some Principles in the Thermal Requirements
  of Fishes," Buart. Biol. Rev. 31:  (2), 75-87.

Brown, J. D. , et al_, 1967; "Some Physico-Chemical and Biological
  Aspects of Three Cold Tailwaters in Northern Arkansas,"
  Proceedings 21st Annual Cont., SE Association Game and Fish
  Commission, pp 369-381.

Buchanan, T., 1974; Threatened Native Fishes of Arkansas,
  66-105, in:  Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Dept.
  of Planning, 248 pp.

Buchanan, T., 1973; Key to the Fishes of Arkansas, Arkansas
  Game and Fish Commission.

Burt, W. H., and Grossenheider, R. P., 1964; A Field Guide
  to the Mammals,  Second  Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co.
                            163

-------
Cashner, R. C.,  1967; A Survey of the Fishes of the Cold
  Tailwaters of the White River in Northwestern Arkansas;
  and a Comparison of the White River with Selected Warm-
  water Streams, unpublished M.S.  thesis, Univ. of Arkansas.

CH2M Hill, Inc., 1977; Non-Point Source Report For Jefferson
  County, Missouri Areawide Waste Treatment Management (208)
  Study, East-West Gateway Coordinating Council.

Cotteral, J. A., Jr., and Norris,  D.  P., 1969; "Septic
  Tank Systems," Journal Sanitary Engineering Division,
  American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.  95, p 715,
  August, 1969.

Engineering Services, Inc:
            1976a;  Facility Plan for Lakeview, Arkansas
                      Wastewater Collection and Treatment System.
            1976b;  Environmental Assessment for Lakeview,
                      Arkansas Wastewater Collection and Treatment
                      System.

Environmental Impact Center, Inc. ,  1975; Secondary Effects
  of Public Investments in Highways and Sewers, Prepared for
  EPA, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and Council
  on Environmental Quality.

Environmental Protection Agency:
     	, 1978;   Construction Costs for Municipal  Wastewater
                    Treatment Plants:  1973-1977,  430/9-77-013,
                    January, 1978.
                            164

-------
          ,  1977a;   Alternatives  for Small  Wastewater
                      Treatment Systems
                      Volume  1:   On-Site  Disposal/Septage
                                 Treatment  and Disposal
                      Volume  2:   Pressure Sewers/Vacuum  Sewers
                      Volume  3:   Cost/Effectiveness  Analysis
          ,  1977b;   Final  Environmental  Impact Statement for
                      Albuquerque,  New Mexico Wastewater
                      Treatment Facilities,  Region VI.
          ,  1977c;   "Funding  of Sewage Collection System
                      Projects,"  Costle,  Douglas  M.,
                      Program Requirements  Memorandum
                      No.  77-8,  June 21,  1977.
          ,  1975a;   Evaluation of Land Application Systems,  No.
                      EPA-430/9-75-001,  March,  1975.
          ,  1975b;   Costs  of  Wastewater  Treatment by  Land
                      Application,  No. EPA-430/9-75-003,  June,
                      1975.
         _,  1975c;   Guidance  for  Preparing  a Facility Plan.
         _,  1975d;   "Comparative  Toxicity of Sewage—Effluent
                      Disinfection  to Freshwater  Aquatic  Life,"
                    Arthur, J.  W.,  et a!.,  Water  Pollution
                      Control  Resource Series.
          ,  1976a;

          ,  1976b;
Disinfection of Wastewater,  Task Force
  Report, EPA-430/9-75-012,  March,  1976.
Direct Environmental  Factors at Municipal
  Wastewater Treatment Works,  EPA-430/9-76-003,
  January, 1976.
Fry, F.  E.  J.,  1948;  "Temperature Relations  of Salmonoids."
  Proc.  Canad.  Com.  Freshwater Fish.  Res. ,  1st Meet.,  Appendix
  "D".
                            165

-------
Fry, F. E. J., Brett, J. R., and Clawson, G. H., 1942;
  "Lethal Limits of Temperature for Young Goldfish,"  Rev.
  Canad. Biol., 1:  50-66.

Gipson, P. S., Sealander, J. A., and Dunn, J. E., 1974;
  "The Taxonomic Status of Wild Cam's in Arkansas," Sys. Zool.
  23: 1, 1-11.

Halberg, H.  N., 1975; "Use of Water in Arkansas," Water
  Resources Summary No. 9,  U.S. Geological Survey in  Cooperation
  with the Arkansas Geological Commission.

Harvey, M. J., 1976; "Endangered Chiroptera of the Southeastern
  United States," Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting of the
  Association of Game and Fish Commissions, 429-432.

Hines, M. S., 1965; "Water Supply Characteristics of Selected
  Arkansas Streams," Water Resources Circular No. 9, U.S.
  Geological  Survey in Cooperation with the Arkansas
  Geological  Commission.

Howell, A. H.,  1911; "Birds of Arkansas," Biological Survey
  Bulletin #38, U.S. Department of Agriculture,  Gov't. Printing
  Office, Washington, D.C.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1977;  Guidelines
  for the Preparation of Facilities Plans for Unsewered
  Communities.

James, F. C., 1974; "Threatened Native Birds of Arkansas,"
  pp 107-122, in:  Arkansas Natural Area Plan,  Arkansas
  Department of Planning, 248 pp.
                            166

-------
Jones, J. R. E.,  1964; Fish and River Pollution,  London,
  Butterworths.

Keener, R.,  1973; Septic Tank Contamination of Ground Water
  in Northwest Arkansas, University of Arkansas.

Lamonds, A.  G., 1972; Water Resources Reconnaissance of the Ozark
  Plateaus  Province, Northern Arkansas, Atlas HA-383, U.S. Geological
  Survey.

Means, Robert  S.  Inc., 1978; Building Construction Cost Data,
  36th Edition.

Merkens, J.  C., 1958; "Studies on the Toxicity of Chlorine and
  Chloramines  to the Rainbow Trout," Water Waste Treatment, J
  7:150-151.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1971; "Chlorinated
  Municipal Waste Toxicities to Rainbow Trout and Fathead
  Minnows,"  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
  D.C.  Water  Pollution Control Research Series EPA-18050GZZ
  10/71, October, 1971.

Nebel, C.,  et  a_]_. , 1973; "Ozone Disinfection of Industrial-
  Municipal Secondary Effluents," Jour. Water Poll. Control
  Fed. 45,  1973.

Northwest Arkansas Economic Development District:
          _, 1974;   Baxter County Water and Sewer Plan.
           , 1977 and 1974; Socio-Economic Profile.
          _, 1977;  Lakeview Arkansas Comprehensive Development
                    Plan, Lakeview Planning Commission.
                            167

-------
Office of Endangered Species, 1977; "Endangered and Threatened
  Wildlife and Plants," Federal Register, Vol. 142, No. 135.

Otis, R.  J.,  et aL,  1977; On-Site Disposal of Small Wastewater
  Flows,  University of Wisconsin.

Peterson, R.  T.,  1947; A Field Guide to the Birds, Second
  Edition, Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston.

Pfitzer,  D.  W., 1962; "Investigations of Waters Below Large
  Storage Reservoirs  in Tennessee," Dingle-Johnson Report,      ;
  Prof.  F-l-R  : 1-255.

Pflieger, W.  L.,  1971; "A Distributional Study of Missouri
  Fishes," Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas,
  20(3)  : 225-570.

Plunkett, T.  W.,  and  Mitchell, D.,  1974; An Evaluation of
  Selected Existing Septic Tank Systems in Northwest Arkansas,
  University of Arkansas.

Ransom,  M. D., et aJL , 1975; Wastewater Disposal  by Septic
  Tank Systems in Selected Soils of Northwest Arkansas,  University
  of Arkansas.

Reagan,  D. P., 1974;  "Threatened Native Amphibians of Arkansas,"
  p 93-99, in:  Arkansas Natural Area Plan,  Ark.  Dept.  of
  Planning,  248 pp.

Reagan,  D. P., 1974;  "Threatened Native Reptiles  of Arkansas,"
  101-105, in:  Arkansas Natural Area Plan,  Arkansas Department
  of Planning.
                            168

-------
Rogers and Associates, Inc., 1975; Proposed Sanitary Sewerage
  Improvements, City of Bull Shoals, Arkansas, Facility Plan
  and Environmental Assessment.

Schmidt-Nielsen, K., 1975; Animal Physico1ogy--Adaption and
  Environment, Cambridge University Press.

Sealander, J. A., and Gipson, P. S. , 1973; "Status of the
  Mountain Lion in Arkansas."  Proc.  Ark. Acad. of Science
  27:38-41.

Sealander, J. A., and Gipson, P. S. , 1974; "Threatened
  Native Mammals of Arkansas," 123-127, in:  Arkansas
  Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Department of Planning,
  248 pp.

Sealander, J. A., 1956; " A Provisional Check-list and Key
  to the Mammals of Arkansas" (with annotations), American Mid.
  Nat. 56:257-96.

Soil Conservation Service, 1961; "Soils Suitable for Septic
  Tank Fields," Information Bulletin 243.

Steyermark, J., 1963; Flora of Missouri, Iowa State Univ.
  Press, Ames, Iowa.

Tsai, C., 1973; "Water Quality and Fish Life Below Sewage
  Outfalls," Trans. Am. Fish Soc. , 102(2) : 281-292.

Tucker, G. E., 1974; "Threatened Native Plants of Arkansas,"
  p 39-92, in:  Arkansas Natural Area Plan, Arkansas Department
  of Planning, p 248.
                            169

-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
          , 1973;   Operations and Maintenance Environmental
                      Statement for Bull Shoals Lake.
          , 1946;   Geologic Investigation for Bull Shoals
                      Dam.
U.S. Geological Survey:
          _, 1976;   Geologic Map of Arkansas.
          _, 1976;   Water Resources of South Central Missouri
                      Atlas HA-550.
          r, 1976;   Water Resources Data for Arkansas.
          _, 1975;   Flow-Duration and Low-Flow Frequency
                      Determinations of Selected Arkansas
                      Streams.
          , 1974;   State Hydrologic Unit Map - Arkansas.
          , 1972;   Quadrangle Maps - Bull Shoals and Cotter.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1967; Manual of Septic Tank
  Practice, Publication 526.

Wallace, J. R.,  and Mundi,  E.  K., 1973; Field Permeability
  Measurements in Fractured Rock, Law Engineering Co. Technical
  Publication G-6.

Walton, W. C. , 1970; Groundwater Resource Evaluation, McGraw
  Hill.

Wheeler, H. E.,  1924; The Birds of Arkansas, State Bureau of
  Mines, Manufacturers and Agriculture, Little Rock, Arkansas.
                            170

-------
APPENDIX A - Correspondence
         p. - A

-------
                r  \                              •     •

                           STATE OF ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION  CONTROL AND  ECOLOGY
                             8OO1 NATIONAL. DRIVE
                         LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72209
                                                          8O1 371-17O1 GEN. OFF.
                                                          901 371-1136 AIR DIV.
 October 20, 1976
 Mr. Jerry W. Martin, P.E.
 Engineering Services, Inc.
 214 West Emma
 Springdale, Arkansas 72764

 Dear Mr. Martin:

 Re  Facility Plan
     Lakeview, Arkansas
     EPA Project No. C-05-0441-01-0

 Your facility for Lakeview has been reviewed.  Our comments on
 the report are below.

 1.   Page I/Subsections B.I.a.(3) and (4).
      Has the Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism committed
      itself to connect the Bull  Shoals State Park wastewater system
      to the proposed project?

 2.   Page I/NOTE (at bottom of page) 2nd and 3rd Sentences.
      Could a reasonable estimate of the wastewater flow be made
      from a study of the Lakeview-Midway Water Association water
      consumption records?

 3.   Page 8/Subsection C/Last Paragraph.
      Since the volume of sludge will be small and infrequent, has
      the possiblity of land application been carefully explored
      as opposed to burying it in a highly fractured limestone
      area?

 4.   Page 18/Subsection 2.
      What controls will be taken to prevent illegal tieons before
      the works are finished?

 5.   Appendix "B".
      a.   Department records indicate 250 mg/1 is a more favorable
      BODc design concentration for communities in Arkansas.  Please
      revise your treatment units with this figure in mind.

      b.   Rapid sand filters without chemical precipitation have a
      poor track record in Arkansas.  Because of this the Department
      casts a reluctant eye towards them.  Request you please recon-
      sider your design using intermittent sand filters.  A loading
      rate of 5 to 10 GaT/SF/Day is acceptable to the Department.
      At least three beds and perferably four need to be considered
      to insure flexibility of operation,

                                 •ih

-------
Mr. Jerry W. Martin, P.E.
October 20, 1976
Page Two
     c.   Since White River below Bull Shoals Dam is a trout
     stream, dechlorination of the effluent after disinfection
     must be considered.

6.   Environmental Assessment/Appendix "C'VArcheological Report/
     Pages 4 and 5/Recommendations.
     The recommendations of this report need to be closely
     followed.

7.   What is the estimated manpower requirement for proper
     operation and maintenance of the proposed wastewater
     system?

8.   The facility plan must include a "User Charge Schedule"
     and "Cost Recovery System" to show that sufficient revenues
     will be collected by the community to pay its matching
     share plus the ability to exercise an effective operation
     and maintenance program.

9.   Have the citizens of the community been notified that
     abandoned septic tanks must be filled in with gravel?

Return your answers as an addendum to be attached to the facility
plan.

Sincerely,
 Martin  H.  Roy
 Engineer
 Water Pollution  Control  Division

 MHR:nrt

 cc/Thomas  Bercher,  Asst.  Project  Consultant
                                 2A

-------
                              ADDENDUM NO. 1

                               FACILITY PLAN

                      LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER COLLECTION

                                     &

                             TREATMENT SYSTEM

                            LAKEVTEW, ARKANSAS
                              C-05-0441-01-0


The following information is supplied in reply to the conments contained in
the letter from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology dated
October 20, 1976:

1.  Page I/ Subsections B.I.a. (3) and (4)

The Arkansas Department of Parks and Tourism has not committed itself to con-
nect the Bull Shoals State Park wastewater system to the proposed project.
The Parks Department Engineer has verbally indicated interest in connecting
the State Park to the proposed system.  This was followed up by a letter to the
Department of Parks and Tourism dated January 9, 1976.  No official reply was
received to that letter.

A copy of the Facility Plan was submitted to the Arkansas Department of Parks
and Tourism on October 19, 1976 for their review and ccmnent.  As of this date,
no comments have been received.

2.  Page I/ Note (at bottom of page) 2nd and 3rd sentences

An attempt was made to estimate the wastewater flows from a study of the Lake-
view - Midway Water Association records.  However, the information provided by
the Water Association resulted in water consumption figures which, in our opin-
ion, were unreasonably low.  Close examination of their records, revealed a large
number of customers who were simply paying a minimum bill and were not even con-
nected to the water system.  We feel like the figures presented on page 1 of the
Facility Plan are much more accurate.

3.  Page 8/ Subsection C/ Last Paragraph

Current plans call for burial of sludge at the treatment plant site.  It is
aniticipated that the soil will be silt and clay to a suitable depth in this
particular area along the White River.  In the event soil conditions preclude
the safe burial of sludge, land application under controlled conditions may
be utilized.

4.  Page 18/ Subsection 2

We do not anticipate a problem with illegal tieons prior to completion of;the
project.  Such unathorized connections are clearly a violation of Article IV,
Section I of the proposed Sewer Use Ordinance and this will be strictly enforced
by the Town of Lakeview.
                                      3A

-------
                                   - 2 -


5.  Appendix "B"

A.  Appendix "B" has been revised based on 250 mg/1 influent BOD-.

B.  The use of intermittant sand filters was considered.  Based on a loading
    rate of 10 GAL/SF/DAY, a minimum of 30,000 square feet of filter area
    would be required.  When comparing the cost of such an installation to the
    cost of rapid sand filters, the decision was made to use rapid sand filters.
    The unit processes of the treatment plant were purposely selected so that
    chemical precipitation could be included if necessary.  In view of the
    comment from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, such
    chemical precipitation facilities will be included intially in the treat-
    ment plant design.

C.  The need for dechlorination of the effluent after disinfection was ser-
    iously considered.  However, with the minimum flows available in the
    receiving stream, the White River, it was felt that adequate dilution of
    any chlorine residual would be provided so as not to adversly affect the
    trout waters.

    According to information furnished by the Little Rock District Corps of
    Engineers, the minimum projected flow in the White River below Bull Shoals
    Dam is 150 cfs.  The lowest recorded flow since the completion of Bull
    Shoals Dam was 250 cfs.

    Using the 150 cfs figure and assuming that our maximum effluent discharge
    will be approximately 310 gpm with a chlorine residual of 2 ppm, a chlorine
    dosage in the stream of less than 0.01 ppm would result.  This would be under
    the most extreme conditions.

 6.  Environmental Assessment/ Appendix "C"/ Archeological Report/ Pages 4 and
    5/ Recommendations

 The recommendations of this report will be closely followed.

 7.  It is estimated that it will require one full time and one part-time person
 to  properly operate and maintain the proposed system.

 8.  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VT, the "User
 Charge Schedule" and  "Cost Recovery System" do not have to be completed until
 midway of the Step II program.

 9.  The citizens of the corrmunity have not as yet been officially notified that
 abandoned septic tank systems must be filled in with gravel.  The sewer use
 ordinance will  be amended to include this requirement.
 November 16,  1976
                                                           Martin, P.E.
                                                     ;iNEEB|ENG SERVICES,  INC.

-------
                           STATE  OF ARKANSAS

 DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL  AND ECOLOGY
                             8OO1 NATIONAL DRIVE
                          LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O0


                                                          BO1 371-17O1 GEN. OFF.
                                                          SOI 371-1136 AIR DIV.
Becember 9, 1976
Mayor Claude U. Shonkwoler
Lalser
P.O. Box A.F.
Lakevlew, Arkansas  72642

Dear Mayor Shonkwoler:

We have received your 201 Facility Plan and have forwarded  to
EPA, Dallas,  The basic concepts of the plan have been  approved,
however the STP will require dechlorlnatlon prior to  discharge.
The basis for this decision 1s report number EPA-430/9-75-012
March, 1976, titled Disinfection of Wastewater.   Dechlorlnatlon
will be required because of the quality of the stream Into  which
the city will discharge.

It Is also necessary that we be formally notified of  any  changes 1n
signatory authority.

If we may be of further assistance please advise.

Sincerely,
      ~ V
Tom Bercher
Asst. Project Consultant

TB/ch

cc:  Jerry W. Martin/ Engineering Services,  Inc.

-------
   Djvid Pryor
   Govtrnor

William 1C. Henderson

    Dintlor
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF PARKS &TOURISM

                 PARKS DIVISION

1510 Broadway  •  Uttfc Rock, Arkansas 72202 • Telephone (501) 371-1191

                                 January 25, 1977
   Ridurd Duvk's

Dirtttor of Stait Patkt
    Mr.  Jerry W.  Martin, P.E.
    Engineering  Services,  Inc.
    214 West Emma
    Springdale,  Arkansas 72764

    Dear Mr. Martin:

         Thank you  for  forwarding a copy of the plan for  the proposed Lakeview
    Wastewater Collection  and Treatment System near Bull  Shoals State Park.  I
    will forward this on to our Planning and Development  section.

         We feel  that it is usually advantegous for one of  our state parks to
    tie on to a  local waste water system if possible.  However, you may know
    that we have recently  completed a sewer plant at Bull Shoals and we will
    have to study the situation further and get cost quotations from the City
    of Lakeview  before  we  make a firm commitment for Bull Shoals State Park
    to tie in to the system.
         Thank you again  for sending the plan.
                                                  Sincerely,
    RWDrqmg

    cc: Bob Moody
                                                  Richard  W.  Davies
                                                  Director, Arkansas State Parks
                                          6A

-------
COMMISSIONERS

     GUY RENTER
      CHAIRMAN
     CHARLESTON

 DR. RALPH H. BOWERS
    VICE CHAIRMAN
      HARRISON

  MICHAEL F. MAHONY
     EL DORADO

    WM. F. WRIGHT
  NORTH LITTLE ROCK

   HENRY MOORE III
     TEXARKANA

KANEASTER HODGES, JR.
      NEWPORT

   HAYS T. SULLIVAN
      BURDETTE

  DR. P. M. JOHNSTON
     FAYETTEVILLE
                                                              ANDREW H. HUUir, Director
     Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission
      LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
           October 4, 1977
               Mr.  Roga  Stojeba
               Planning  Division
               Sverdrup  Parcel and Associates
               800  North 12th Boulevard
               St.  Louis, MO  63101

               Dear Mr.  Stojeba:

                   At your request we are enclosing temperature data
               from our  continuous recording thermometers located at
               Cotter and approximately two miles upstream from Shipps
               Ferry  on  the White River.  This data includes a summari-
               zation of one full year of recordings from the Cotter
               Station during 1975.   It reflects the daily water tem-
               perature  extremes, the variation between daily high and
               low  temperatures, and  daily average temperatures.  In
               addition,  copies of several of the weekly temperature
               charts are enclosed.   These particular charts were
               selected  from weeks during this summer period in which
               there  were extreme high temperatures recorded on the
               White  River.  These charts are from both the Cotter
               Station and the Courtney Station  (above Shipps Ferry).

                   You  will note from the 1977 charts that there were
               several days during this summer in which water tempera-
               tures  reached 75° or above during the daylight hours.
               Temperatures of this extreme ae very critical to our
               trout  program that exists in the White River.  It is
               therefore obvious that with such marginal temperatures
               that regularly occur in the White River as a result of
               low  generation from Bull Shoals dam, any additional warm-
               ing  of this water from effluent releases of any type could
               have a severe affect on the multi-million dollar trout
                                     7A

-------
Mr. Roga Stojeba
Page 2
October 4, 1977
fishery that exists in the White River.  We would there-
fore be very concerned about any additional water releases
that could possibly increase water temperatures at any
point on the White River between Bull Shoals dam and Sylamore,

     Hopefully, this information will provide you with the
necessary data to make the analysis that you desire concern-
ing the city sewage effluent from the Lakeview area below
Bull Shoals dam.

     If you need additional information that you feel we have
on hand, please advise us and it will be furnished to you.
                      William E. Keith, Chief
                      Fisheries Division
WEK/amcg

 Enc.

-------
                                     Bex 90, Route 1
                                     Lakeviev
                                     Arkansas  726^-2
                      October 12, 1977
Mr. Roger N. Jungolaua, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 Norht 12th Boulevard
St. Louis
Missouri 83101
Dear Mr. Jungclaust

      Mr. MeElroy joins me in saying that lit was both
pleasant and constructive to meet with you last week*

      Since our conwersations, £ have followed up briefly
on per capita water usage in Edgewood Bay Subdiviison.
Since becoming Water Commissioner a couple of years ago,
Mr* Martin Feil has been totalling the individual meter
readings to obtain a total water usage figure for each
quarter.  As expected, the summer quarters reflect heavy
lawn and garden watering*  For the first and ftaoth calendar
year quarters when lawn and garden use would be minimal,
the total usage ranged from slightly below to slightly over
one million gallons.  On the basis of 91 days in the
quarter, approximately 90 home in the subdivision, and
two persons per average household the average water use
figures very close to 60 gallons per person per day.

      Even, in the winter quarters some of the water usage
will not find its way into the waste water disposal system.,
Some will have been used for car washing, houseplant water-
ing, humidification and some lawn and garden watering „
This will be offset in greater or less degree by increased
use of laundry and bathwater in the summer quarters.  If you
have not already done so, you can and probably should get
more detailed and official data from Mr. Feil.

      In any case the l^K) gallon per capita figure adduced
by Engineering Associates, Incv has very questionable
antecedents amd will certainly be challenged at the Public
Hearing on the BUS.  It is difficult to see how the present-
ly proposed plant could qualify for Federal funding under
existing EPA guidelines.

      We remain willing to help in any way we can.

                              Sincerely yours,
                          9 A  A- W, Weitkaap

-------
                                      Box 90, Route 1
                                      Lakeview
                                      Arkansas 726^2


                October 21*, 1977


Mr. Roger NV Jtmgclaus
Sverdrup A Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis
Missouri 63101


Dear Mr. Jungclaus:

      I am attaching a copy of a letter to EPA requesting
information on some recently publicized changes in  their
philosophy.

      I will grasp this opportunity  to comment on your
statement that there arc other ways  to control population
density.  After you studied the Bull Shoals  Environmental
Impact document, I am sure that youmted that the proponents
of sewer* relied heavily, if not totally, on  the concept
that sewers provided the only viable route to enhanced
population density and to the total  exploitation of other-
wise unbuildable lands:.

      Fortunately for the consideration of alternatives,
the stated policies of EPA are currently veering toward
solution of actual, wartemter disposal problems rather
than marl mixing the dispensation, of  Federal  ftinds.

      I look forward to seeing your  report.

                             Sincerely yours,
                             A.. W. Weitkamp        (/
                          10 A

-------
   hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
 -Resident
jerry martin, p.e.,
 vice-president
                                                   ->  1
                                  214 west emma
                              sprlngdale, arkansas 72764
                               telephone 501-751-3733
                                October 26, 1977
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
 sen lor vice-president
garyl.king,
 secretary-treasurer
          Mr.  Roger Jungclaus
          Sverdrup & Parcel
          800  North 12th  Street
          St.  Louis, MO   63101
                                         Re:   Wastewater Collection
                                                & Treatment  Facilities
                                               Lakeview, Arkansas
                                               C-05-0441-01-0
          Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
          Attached is the  cost breakdown  for eliminating  the State
          Park and Corps of  Engineers Park  from the proposed sewer
          project at Lakeview, Arkansas.  The costs shown reflect
          the cost necessary to provide sanitary sewer service to
          Bull Shoals State  Park and the  Lakeview use area of the
          Corps of Engineers.   If these two (2)  facilities were
          eliminated from  the project these amounts could be sub-
          tracted from the total project  amount.

          In regards to the  cost per person of the proposed project
          this could be obtained from the information in  the Envi-
          ronmental Assessment and the Facility Plan.  Based on the
          projected population equivalent for the year 1980 (1,605)
          the cost per capita would be $981.00 ($1,574,825.00 T
          1,605).  If you  subtract out the  cost for eliminating the
          State Park and Corps of Engineers Park ($120,400.00 +
          50,100.00 = $170,500.00)  and the  population equivalent
          from these two  (2)  facilities (230 + 250 = 480)  the cost
          per person would be $1,248.00 ($1,404.325.00 4  1,125) .

          I  trust that this  is the information which you  desire.  If
          I  can be of any 'further assistance,  please dp not hesitate
          to call upon me.
                                               Sincerely yours,
          JWM/csm


' '•-; & *•'- o^YF^ft?' '•; X'iWi-sv^sSj'jBKJ
                                                                 .
                                              Jerify W. Martin, P.
                         Claude  Shonkwiler
    serviees offered:  consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, municipal work.
                 feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying

-------
                        PROJECT COST BREAKDOWN

                   STATE PARK AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                          IAKEVIEW,  ARKANSAS
                            C-05-0441-01-0
                                BULL SHOALS            CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                                STATE PARK             LAKEVIEW USE AREA

Distribution System             $ 48,200.00                $17,000.00

Treatment Plant                   45,000.00                 21,000.00

Contingency                        9,000.00                  4,000.00

     Total Construction         $102,200.00                $42,000.00

Engineering Cost

  Design                           6,600.00                  2,700.00

  construction Observation         4,100.00                  1,700.00

Legal & Administrative Costs       1,000.00                    500.00

Land & Right-of-Way                2,500.00                  1,200.00

Interest During Construction       4,000.00  '                2,000.00


     TOTAL COST                 $120,400.00                $50,100.00
                                    12 A

-------
                         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

                   LITTLE ROCK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
                             POST OFFICE BOX 8«7
                        LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 722O3
       REPLY TO
       ATTENTION OF:


SWLED-PV                                                  7 November 1977
Mr. Roger Jungclaus, P.E.
Sverdrup & Parcel and Associates, Inc.
800 North 12th Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri  63101
Dear Mr. Jungclaus:

As requested in your 27 October 1977 letter, a copy of our 3 February 1976
letter to Engineering Services, Inc. is inclosed.  There has been no
further change or development concerning the Corps making a commitment for
using the proposed Lakeview system.  Also, we have no revised estimates for
wastewater flows at the Lakeview Park.

With regard to your question concerning the Norfork lagoon system, we do
not believe it is an acceptable long term arrangement.  From a long term
viewpoint, we believe that other alternatives must be considered to
provide for waterborne restrooms and showers.  Possible alternatives are
providing central treatment systems for individual parks or connecting to
regional or local sewage treatment systems.

Planning for Corps recreational facilities is a continuing.process and is
responsive to changes in laws and policies.  Currently, our policies
provide:  (1) Except for needed sanitary facilities to comply with State
and Federal laws, new construction of recreation facilities at existing
projects will be by cost sharing with a non-Federal public entity which
agrees to assume operation and maintenance responsibilities.  (2) User
fee funds may be used to convert vault to waterborne restrooms and to
provide for showers.  When a decision is made to construct the Lakeview
system and the cost for our use of the system is determined, we will
evaluate our priority needs with regard to funds and make a decision
concerning connection to the system.
                                    13 A

-------
SWLED-PV
Mr. Roger Jungclaus, P.E.
                      7 November 1977
Our financial participation in the proposed  system would be limited to a
reasonable portion (in proportion to the Lakeview Park  sewage flow) of
the first cost of the new plant.   If this  proportion method was used, then
we would not be able to pay a monthly user fee.  I hope this is sufficient
clarification for your purpose.
                                    Sincerely yours,
1 Incl
As stated
        ,
-------
                   ENGINEERING SERVICES, iNC.
 — hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
 Resident
jerry martin, p.e.,
 vice-president
                             sprtngd*!®, Kansas 72764
                              telephone 901-751-8733
             December 1, 1177
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
 senior vice-president
gary I. king,
 secretary-treasurer
       Mr. Roger N. Jungclaus,  P.E.
       Sverdrup & Parcel  and Assoc., Inc.
       800 North 13th Boulevard
       St. Louis, MO  63101

                                       Res
                           Wastewater Collection &
                            treatment System
                           Lakeview,  Arkansas
                           C-05-0441-01-0
       Dear Mr. Jungclaus:
       Attached as you requested is the cost estimate  for  connecting
       the proposed Lakeview Sewer System to the planned Town of
       Bull Shoals system.   The estimate includes only the facilities
       needed to transport  the wastewater to the site  of the  Bull
       Shoals treatment plant and does not include the cost of ex-
       panding that treatment plant to handle the Lakeview wastewater,
       Also, if this alternative were chosen, approximately 4,100
       feet of the proposed 12 inch outfall could be eliminated with
       a resultant cost reduction of approximately $40,000.00.

       I have also attached a copy of our Preliminary  User Charge
       Analysis which I think will provide you with the information
       you desire on the  cost breakdown of the project on  the basis
       of the monthly service charge.  This proposed user  charge
       system has not been  approved by the Arkansas Department of
       Pollution Control  and Ecology or the Environmental  Protection
       Agency as we were  instructed that it would not  be required
       until Step II.  However,  it is the guideline which  we  are
       using in discussing  monthly service charges.

       In reference to Item 1 of Addendum No. 1 to the Facility Plan,
       attached is a copy of a letter from Mr. Richard W.  Davies,  s
       Director, Arkansas State Parks which is the only official
       correspondence we  have received from the Arkansas Department
       of Parks and Tourism.
    CONSULTING ENGINEERS
     a

    services of feted:
consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, municipal work,
feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying

-------
                       r
                                     - 2 -
       Please let  me know If there are any questions concerning
       this material or if I may  be of any further assistance.

                                            Sincerely yours,
       JWM/csm

       Enclosures

       cc:  Honorable Claude  Shonkwiler
            Mayor,  Town of Lakeview

            Arkansas Dept. of Pollution
              Control & Ecology

            Mr.  Steve Burkett
            Environmental Protection
              Agency, Region VI
Jerffy
                                                   W.  Martin, P.E.
services offered;  consulting engineers,^ircivUtn0ine0ring projects, soil testing, municipal
     '          feasibility studies, larid otanrtina, subdivisions, survevlna

-------
                            PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
                                       for
                  CONNECTING THE PROPOSED LAKEVIBW SEWER SYSTEM
                                        to
                                   BULL SBDALS
                                  C-05-0441-01-0
                                        APPROX.       JKTT          TOTAL
ITEM          DESCRIPTION              QUANTITY      PRICE         COST

 1      Punp Station                       1 ea.       L.S.       $ 40,000.00

 2      8" Ductile Iron Force Main    16,000 l.f.    $  9.00      144,000.00

 3      8" River Crossing              1,000 l.f.      25.00       25,000.00

 4      Rock Excavation                  100 yd3      13.50        1,350.00

 5      Bedding                          200 yd3       7.00        1,400.00

 6      Concrete Encasement               15 yd       50.00          750.00

 7      Air Relief Valves                  2 ea.      500.00        1,000.00


        TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST    ....    $213,500.00
                                        17 A

-------
                         PRELIMINARY USER CHARGE ANALYSIS
                            LAKEVIEW WASTEWATER SYSTEM
                                LAKEVIEW,  ARKANSAS
                                  C-05-0441-01-0
 I.   ANNUAL OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE POST

       A.   Loan Payment (Based on 40 yr.  loan,  5%,  $400,000    $24,000.00
       B.   Operation and Maintenance of Treatment Plant         20,000.00
       C.   Operation and Maintenance of Collection  System       20,000.00

           TOTAL       .......    $64,000.00
           Add 10% Coverage  ......      6,400.00

           TOTAL YEARLY REVENUE NEEDED TO MEET EXPENSES  .  .  .  $70,400.00


II.   PROPOSED USER CHARGE SYSTEM

       A.   Cost per 1,000 gallons of wastewater

           	$70,400.00 yr.	
            (150,000 gallons)(365 day/yr)   = $0.0012858/gallon

           or $1.2858/1,000 gallons

       B.   PROPOSED RATE SCHEDULE

              WASTEWATER VOLUME                 COST

           First 5,000 gallons         $6.50 minimum
           All over 5,000 gallons      $1.30 per 1,000 gallons

       C.   TYPICAL MONTHLY SERVICE CHARGES

              WASTEWATER VOLUME                CHARGE

               5,000 gallons                   $ 6.50
               7,000 gallons                     9.10
              10,000 gallons                    13.00
              15,000 gallons                    19.50
                                         ISA

-------
  (hall, p.e., r.l.s.,
 president
jerry martin, p.e.,
 vice-president
                   ENGINEERINGSERVICES, INC.
                                 214west@mma
                             sprlngdale, arkansas 72764
                               telephone 501-751-8733
January 10,  1978
e. wait lefevre, p.e.,
 senior vice-president
gary I. king,
 secretary-treasurer
        Mr. Roger N.  Jungclaus, P.E.
        Sverdrup & Parcel and Assoc*,. inc.
        800 North 12th  Boulevard
        St. Louis, MO  63101

        Dear Mr. Jungclauss

        Receipt is acknowledged of your letter dated December 22,
        1977 concerning the  Lakeview Wastewater  Collection and
        Treatment System.  The answers to your questions are as
        follows:

           1) Our estimated  cost for the project is  $1,574,825.00.
              We have rounded this off to $1,600,000.00 in our
              cost analysis  and have assumed that 75% of this will
              come from the  EPA grant.  It is true that certain
              items will be  ineligible for EPA grant assistance;
              a) Land and right-of-way; b) 4" sewer  service line.
              By subtracting these items from the total project
              cost, the EPA  grant would be $1,146,337.50 leaving
              $428,487.50 to be paid by the Town of  Lakeview.  I
              do not  know where the figures came from that were
              in EPA's  Notice of Intent for an EIS.   However, the
              final figures  will depend upon the cost estimates
              developed after completion of the  final construction
              plans and specifications.

              We were advised by EPA early in Step I that the user
              charge  data would not be required  until Step II.
              Therefore,  we  have not spent a lot of  time trying td
              refine  the figures.  We plan on attempting to obtain
              additional grants from other sources to help keep
              the Town's cost within reason.

           2) In regards to  the cost for the pumping station to
              pump from the  lagoons to the clarifier,  this item
              apparently was omitted from the cost estimate.  An
              additional $30,000.00 should be added  to cover this
              item.
      NSLiLTING ENGINEERS
    services offered:  consulting engineers for civil engineering 'projects, soil testing, municipal work,
                 feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying

-------
                                   -  2  -
            3)
 Concerning the loading  on the sand filters, we  will
 be pumping from the  aerated lagoon into the settling
 tank at a rate approximately equal to the average
 flow baaed on a 16 hour day, or about 312.5 gpm.
 The sand filtration  system will have two separate
 filters each capable"of handling the 312.5 gpm  flow
 a-t- = .1na>*-i nrr r\f 5 '•n-rni /-f+• 2   ("hir- r>/-vcj+- OH-h i ma-he waff
               at a loading of 5 gpm/ft
               based on this system.
Our cost estimate was
            4)  We have not developed  any cost figures for dechlor-
               ination*  We are studying the possibility of  using
               another ffieans of disinfection, such as ozone  treat-
               ment*  However, we have  not made a decision.   In
               fact* we had planned on  this decision until we got
               into Step II.

               The plant as proposed  in the Facility Plan has the
               capability of chemical precipitation.

         Please let me know if I may  be of any further assistance.
                                              Sincerely yours
         JWM/csm

         cc
                                                rry\W. Martin,  P.E.
Honorable'Claude  Shonkwiler
Mayor, Town of  Lakeview

Mr. Steve Burkett
EPA

Mr. C. C. Bennett
Arkansas Dept.  of Pollution
 Control & Ecology
services offered^ consulting engineers for civil engineering projects, soil testing, munis
              feasibility studies, land planning, subdivisions, surveying

-------
                  ARKANSAS  HISTORIC
               PRESERVATION  PROGRAM

FIRST STATE CAPITOL • 3OO WEST MARKHAM • LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 722O1

March 5, 1976
Mr. Jerry W, Martin, P,E,
Engineering Services, Inc.
214 West Emma
Springdale, Arkansas  72764
                                    Re;  Lakeview Sewer System
                                         Baxter County
Dear Mr. Martin:
This letter is written in response to your inquiry of March 3,
1976, regarding properties of architectural and historical
significance in the area of the proposed Lakeview Sewer System.

The professional staff of the Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program has reviewed the available material which pertains to
the area in question.  The staff of the Historic Preservation
Program has reported that the proposed Lakeview Sewer System
will not affect any property of architectural or historical
significance.
Sincerely,
     ' 'BartTey
State Historic Preservation Officer

AB;cm

cc:  Fred Kleihauer
                                   21 A
      A DIVISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ARKANSAS NATURAL & CULTURAL HERITAGE

-------
Hv. Janry Han in
   ainaarl^
    Vaat BOM Jtva««a
t**r Ht«

     tn«lo**4 is ««t report en tfe* t««t axtavations in th» ar«a of
     *^«*«4 t»*it»«»t f»ctlltt«8 for th» Town of L«k«vi«v.  We
     4«t«*miijjM th*t th«r« »r* probably two separate eitas in th«
        an4 that 3BA66* irlll aa tavaraly i«^aet*d by th« construction
•I tM tr»at»«ttt facility.  W« faal th* aita ia aligUU for nonination
       Rational Kcgiatcr **€ will b« forv«r«ii«t decowantatidn for
     4atanaia«tioB wttMn * !•« 4ay«.  tfitigatien of tht a«Varaa im»aet
«• tfett aita will W »»e«taary.  Tlia autfall an* intarcaptor A linaa
               c »« pl«te«* In an «M« ubieh will affaet arehaologieal
               it i» poatUU tlutfe avid»»ca ef occupation ia buried
            «• *a»a abla to ta»t.  V« roa^Miat that wh*n tha conetructton
       tvt pUaaiaxt of ta«M Uaa* that wa ba notlfitd, and that
l»»aOmtl»« j>ijf»JNnal W aiartod to W on tk« outlook for avldanca
•I >>a4U>Xttg •aiBpaHom, m«Ji ia «t«M toola, bona, and pottary
     Wa at«l«9iw iof tfe« ««lcy im tittHiitttnt thii raport.  If wa
       *ff ftunm »««nri«ot »lo*M laft ua tMftv.

                                                 line«v*ly,
                                                 Oiarlat t, ««|i«ity III
                                  22 A

-------
March 22, 1978

Mr. Charles R. Mcdmsey III
Director
Arkansas Archeologlcal Survey
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Fayettevllle, Arkansas  72701

HE:  C-t)50 441-0 - Lakevlew, Arkansas

Dear Mr. McGlmsey:

I refer to the meeting 1n your office on March 20, 1978, between you,
Jerry Martin of Engineering Services, and Steve Burkett and Paul Bergstrom
of our EPA office.  It 1s our understanding from this meeting that should
the town of Lakevlew wish to use the site as proposed 1n the Facility
Plan for the above referenced project, then a small shift to the west
of the treatment plant location should alleviate the need for a Stage
1 archaeological investigation of this project.  If the eastern boundary
of the treatment plant was to approximately coincide with test pit XU
3 as exhibited in your report, then sites 3BA66a and 3BA66b should not
be adversely affected by the construction of the treatment plant.  Please
advise us 1f this is your understanding so that we may inform the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation.

Sincerely,
Clinton B. Spotts
Regional EIS Coordinator  (6ASAF)

bcc:  Fred Brunner, S&P
                                   23 A

-------
                                   AHCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Direet* - Charltt R. MeGUwty Ol
SUU Arca*olHi«t - Hester A. Davis
Coordinating Office
University of Arkansas Museum
Fayetteville. Arkansas 72701
Phone: 501-575-3556
                                                           April  24,  1978
     Mr. Clinton B. Spotts
     EIS Coordinator   6ASAF
     Environmental Protection Agency
     First International Building
 ;'i;-',i,1201 Bin Street   /'r.
     Dallas, TX   73270

     Dear Mr. Spotts:

          This is in response to your  letter of March  22  regarding our under-
     standing about the location of the treatment  plant  for the  town of Lakeview,
   .  Arkansas.  A shift in the location would, in  light  of  our current information,
     avoid 3BA66a, the prehistoric site we consider  eligible for nomination to
  . '  the National Register.  It is likely that if  the  eastern boundary of the
     plant coincided with test pit XU  3, that there  would be minimal or no effect
     on 3BA66b, however, we would like to have an  opportunity to run auger tests
     in the area which would be affected by the new  location since we did not
     determine the eastern boundary of 3BA66b.  To facilitate decisions, the
   .Survey will do this testing within the next six to  eight days if possible,
     at no additional cost to the project, and notify  you by phone of the
     results.

          We have been contacted by Mr. Dean, the  landowner, who suggested the :
     possibility of the plant being located across Bruce  Creek to the east.
    .There is a previously recorded site in that location (mentioned in our
     report, 3BA45) , which we deem also to be eligible for  nomination to the
     national- Register, and have indicated that to Mr. Dean.  We still believe
     that the location west of 3BA66a  would be the best  for protection of the
     resources.

                                                       Sincerely,
                                                                         ~l

                                                       Charles  R.  McGimsey III
                                                       Director
     CRM/lcm
     cc:  State Planning  and  Development  Clearinghouse
        •  State Historic  Preservation Officer
          Engineering  Services,  Inc.
                                              24 A
       WY 2 - 1978

  ENV  S:    '   '.
                      Th« UnlV«nilV«f Arkonsot it on Equal Opportunity Employer

-------